1 2 > 
 
   
 

trump’s travel ban, visitors vs. immigrants

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6679
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
27 June 2018 08:07
 

trump’s travel ban seems to cover both visitors and immigrants, correct?

To me, these are two distinctly different categories, and lumping them together is only going to add more confusion to the situation. I’m not sure exactly what I think about visitors, but as for immigrants I’d say:

1 - For decades now, the US immigration rules have stated that people can be denied entry if they are members of terrorist organizations or members of totalitarian ideologies.

2 - About half the world’s Muslims wish to live under Sharia law. Any country that lives under Sharia law is living in a totalitarian state.

3 - Immigration is a privilege, not a right.

4 - While - IMO - trump remains despicable and I’m sure this particular action was horribly executed, there is some merit to the idea that Muslims ought to be asked to denounce Sharia as one criteria in applying to immigrate.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2467
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
27 June 2018 08:26
 

More importantly, it tries to limit asylum seekers - contrary to the Geneva Convention.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5609
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
27 June 2018 08:37
 
icehorse - 27 June 2018 08:07 AM

4 - While - IMO - trump remains despicable and I’m sure this particular action was horribly executed, there is some merit to the idea that Muslims ought to be asked to denounce Sharia as one criteria in applying to immigrate.

A much better approach would be to couple an acceptance of the rule of law AND a willingness to accept residency in a heterogeneous, secular civil society. Defend those values and hold all residents and citizens to them. Then let social and cultural assimilation and accommodation develop organically.

Too many liberals think that all people think like them. I didn’t say “share the same values” I said think like them. Social conservatives have their many faults, but at least they often understand the importance of national, ethnic, and sectarian identity to most people. They understand the degree to which identity isn’t a matter of being an atomized individual making conscious, deliberate choices about every aspect of their lived experience.

Demanding a pre-emptive renunciation of a millennial-old religious institution because of the illiberal aspects of that tradition makes sense from your point of view, but you’re not most people. You’re expecting people to pass the test before they’ve studied the subject.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  398
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
27 June 2018 09:29
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5609
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
27 June 2018 10:41
 
mapadofu - 27 June 2018 09:29 AM

Doesn’t the current naturalization oath cover this?

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

Good point.

That’s all the government should require; I’d argue that extra-legal incentives to assimilate and “buy in” to a shared civic order to some degree would be helpful. In a positive way, it would be good if we rediscovered the corporate nature of classical Republicanism as an antidote to excessive individualism and socio-cultural fragmentation.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6679
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
27 June 2018 11:58
 
Twissel - 27 June 2018 08:26 AM

More importantly, it tries to limit asylum seekers - contrary to the Geneva Convention.

It’s a good point, but it should also be mentioned that there are a lot of attempts to game the system when it comes to asylum seekers. Further, in many cases it would be more compassionate and effective to help people “in place” rather than to solve the problem by moving a tiny percentage of the threatened people around the globe.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6679
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
27 June 2018 12:00
 
bigredfutbol - 27 June 2018 08:37 AM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 08:07 AM

4 - While - IMO - trump remains despicable and I’m sure this particular action was horribly executed, there is some merit to the idea that Muslims ought to be asked to denounce Sharia as one criteria in applying to immigrate.

A much better approach would be to couple an acceptance of the rule of law AND a willingness to accept residency in a heterogeneous, secular civil society. Defend those values and hold all residents and citizens to them. Then let social and cultural assimilation and accommodation develop organically.

Too many liberals think that all people think like them. I didn’t say “share the same values” I said think like them. Social conservatives have their many faults, but at least they often understand the importance of national, ethnic, and sectarian identity to most people. They understand the degree to which identity isn’t a matter of being an atomized individual making conscious, deliberate choices about every aspect of their lived experience.

Demanding a pre-emptive renunciation of a millennial-old religious institution because of the illiberal aspects of that tradition makes sense from your point of view, but you’re not most people. You’re expecting people to pass the test before they’ve studied the subject.

I’m not sure I agree with your least sentence. Don’t we compel immigrants to pass tests?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6679
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
27 June 2018 12:02
 
mapadofu - 27 June 2018 09:29 AM

Doesn’t the current naturalization oath cover this?

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

In theory it ought to. But in practice there are other immigration laws that would seem to be redundant but are still in play.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5609
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
27 June 2018 12:16
 
icehorse - 27 June 2018 12:00 PM
bigredfutbol - 27 June 2018 08:37 AM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 08:07 AM

4 - While - IMO - trump remains despicable and I’m sure this particular action was horribly executed, there is some merit to the idea that Muslims ought to be asked to denounce Sharia as one criteria in applying to immigrate.

A much better approach would be to couple an acceptance of the rule of law AND a willingness to accept residency in a heterogeneous, secular civil society. Defend those values and hold all residents and citizens to them. Then let social and cultural assimilation and accommodation develop organically.

Too many liberals think that all people think like them. I didn’t say “share the same values” I said think like them. Social conservatives have their many faults, but at least they often understand the importance of national, ethnic, and sectarian identity to most people. They understand the degree to which identity isn’t a matter of being an atomized individual making conscious, deliberate choices about every aspect of their lived experience.

Demanding a pre-emptive renunciation of a millennial-old religious institution because of the illiberal aspects of that tradition makes sense from your point of view, but you’re not most people. You’re expecting people to pass the test before they’ve studied the subject.

I’m not sure I agree with your least sentence. Don’t we compel immigrants to pass tests?

Well, I was using it as a figure of speech for one thing. smile

Secondly, I took your original post to mean denying ENTRY into the country without renouncing sharia law. Not naturalization.

Don’t get me wrong, either way I disagree.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6679
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
27 June 2018 13:25
 
bigredfutbol - 27 June 2018 12:16 PM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 12:00 PM
bigredfutbol - 27 June 2018 08:37 AM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 08:07 AM

4 - While - IMO - trump remains despicable and I’m sure this particular action was horribly executed, there is some merit to the idea that Muslims ought to be asked to denounce Sharia as one criteria in applying to immigrate.

A much better approach would be to couple an acceptance of the rule of law AND a willingness to accept residency in a heterogeneous, secular civil society. Defend those values and hold all residents and citizens to them. Then let social and cultural assimilation and accommodation develop organically.

Too many liberals think that all people think like them. I didn’t say “share the same values” I said think like them. Social conservatives have their many faults, but at least they often understand the importance of national, ethnic, and sectarian identity to most people. They understand the degree to which identity isn’t a matter of being an atomized individual making conscious, deliberate choices about every aspect of their lived experience.

Demanding a pre-emptive renunciation of a millennial-old religious institution because of the illiberal aspects of that tradition makes sense from your point of view, but you’re not most people. You’re expecting people to pass the test before they’ve studied the subject.

I’m not sure I agree with your least sentence. Don’t we compel immigrants to pass tests?

Well, I was using it as a figure of speech for one thing. smile

Secondly, I took your original post to mean denying ENTRY into the country without renouncing sharia law. Not naturalization.

Don’t get me wrong, either way I disagree.

The OP was specifically about “applying for immigration”

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2467
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
28 June 2018 03:47
 
icehorse - 27 June 2018 11:58 AM
Twissel - 27 June 2018 08:26 AM

More importantly, it tries to limit asylum seekers - contrary to the Geneva Convention.

It’s a good point, but it should also be mentioned that there are a lot of attempts to game the system when it comes to asylum seekers. Further, in many cases it would be more compassionate and effective to help people “in place” rather than to solve the problem by moving a tiny percentage of the threatened people around the globe.

If you don’t have systems to help people stay “in place” you have no argument for refusing asylum.
Most people are refused asylum in most countries, but they still have the right to present their case. Trump is trying to deny this.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5609
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
28 June 2018 05:49
 
icehorse - 27 June 2018 01:25 PM
bigredfutbol - 27 June 2018 12:16 PM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 12:00 PM
bigredfutbol - 27 June 2018 08:37 AM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 08:07 AM

4 - While - IMO - trump remains despicable and I’m sure this particular action was horribly executed, there is some merit to the idea that Muslims ought to be asked to denounce Sharia as one criteria in applying to immigrate.

A much better approach would be to couple an acceptance of the rule of law AND a willingness to accept residency in a heterogeneous, secular civil society. Defend those values and hold all residents and citizens to them. Then let social and cultural assimilation and accommodation develop organically.

Too many liberals think that all people think like them. I didn’t say “share the same values” I said think like them. Social conservatives have their many faults, but at least they often understand the importance of national, ethnic, and sectarian identity to most people. They understand the degree to which identity isn’t a matter of being an atomized individual making conscious, deliberate choices about every aspect of their lived experience.

Demanding a pre-emptive renunciation of a millennial-old religious institution because of the illiberal aspects of that tradition makes sense from your point of view, but you’re not most people. You’re expecting people to pass the test before they’ve studied the subject.

I’m not sure I agree with your least sentence. Don’t we compel immigrants to pass tests?

Well, I was using it as a figure of speech for one thing. smile

Secondly, I took your original post to mean denying ENTRY into the country without renouncing sharia law. Not naturalization.

Don’t get me wrong, either way I disagree.

The OP was specifically about “applying for immigration”

I didn’t see “applying” specified.

At any rate, as far as the point I was addressing it’s a distinction without a difference.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6679
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
28 June 2018 06:21
 
bigredfutbol - 28 June 2018 05:49 AM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 01:25 PM
bigredfutbol - 27 June 2018 12:16 PM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 12:00 PM
bigredfutbol - 27 June 2018 08:37 AM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 08:07 AM

4 - While - IMO - trump remains despicable and I’m sure this particular action was horribly executed, there is some merit to the idea that Muslims ought to be asked to denounce Sharia as one criteria in applying to immigrate.

A much better approach would be to couple an acceptance of the rule of law AND a willingness to accept residency in a heterogeneous, secular civil society. Defend those values and hold all residents and citizens to them. Then let social and cultural assimilation and accommodation develop organically.

Too many liberals think that all people think like them. I didn’t say “share the same values” I said think like them. Social conservatives have their many faults, but at least they often understand the importance of national, ethnic, and sectarian identity to most people. They understand the degree to which identity isn’t a matter of being an atomized individual making conscious, deliberate choices about every aspect of their lived experience.

Demanding a pre-emptive renunciation of a millennial-old religious institution because of the illiberal aspects of that tradition makes sense from your point of view, but you’re not most people. You’re expecting people to pass the test before they’ve studied the subject.

I’m not sure I agree with your least sentence. Don’t we compel immigrants to pass tests?

Well, I was using it as a figure of speech for one thing. smile

Secondly, I took your original post to mean denying ENTRY into the country without renouncing sharia law. Not naturalization.

Don’t get me wrong, either way I disagree.

The OP was specifically about “applying for immigration”

I didn’t see “applying” specified.

At any rate, as far as the point I was addressing it’s a distinction without a difference.

I believe that the important distinction is the goal of the individual. Apply for a visa to visit, is importantly different than applying to immigrate.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6679
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
28 June 2018 06:26
 
Twissel - 28 June 2018 03:47 AM
icehorse - 27 June 2018 11:58 AM
Twissel - 27 June 2018 08:26 AM

More importantly, it tries to limit asylum seekers - contrary to the Geneva Convention.

It’s a good point, but it should also be mentioned that there are a lot of attempts to game the system when it comes to asylum seekers. Further, in many cases it would be more compassionate and effective to help people “in place” rather than to solve the problem by moving a tiny percentage of the threatened people around the globe.

If you don’t have systems to help people stay “in place” you have no argument for refusing asylum.
Most people are refused asylum in most countries, but they still have the right to present their case. Trump is trying to deny this.

I’m not defending trump’s actions.

Your point about helping people stay in place doesn’t seem quite right. We spend billions all over the world helping people stay in place. I don’t think it’s as black and white as you’re implying.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5609
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
28 June 2018 07:34
 
icehorse - 28 June 2018 06:21 AM

I believe that the important distinction is the goal of the individual. Apply for a visa to visit, is importantly different than applying to immigrate.

Not sure what this hair-splitting is about. Your OP said you wanted to focus on immigrants; then you took my off-the-cuff figure of speech about “taking a test” literally; so I pointed out that I wasn’t talking naturalization but simply immigration; which you now insist is the point of the OP; which—Yes, that’s what I was talking about. Whether it’s applying for a visa or being an immigrant already here, I thought we were talking about immigrants not tourists. Not the process of becoming a citizen.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6679
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
28 June 2018 07:47
 
bigredfutbol - 28 June 2018 07:34 AM
icehorse - 28 June 2018 06:21 AM

I believe that the important distinction is the goal of the individual. Apply for a visa to visit, is importantly different than applying to immigrate.

Not sure what this hair-splitting is about. Your OP said you wanted to focus on immigrants; then you took my off-the-cuff figure of speech about “taking a test” literally; so I pointed out that I wasn’t talking naturalization but simply immigration; which you now insist is the point of the OP; which—Yes, that’s what I was talking about. Whether it’s applying for a visa or being an immigrant already here, I thought we were talking about immigrants not tourists. Not the process of becoming a citizen.

I don’t think that clarifying the topic is hair-splitting. As I reread this thread it seems we were both a bit sloppy in our category logic, no big deal. But after rereading the OP I think it’s clear. My only point was concerning those people who wish to immigrate, for whatever reason. I was not lumping visitors into the mix.

 
 
 1 2 >