Quote from: Rocklal on February 13, 2017, 11:11:01 pm

Conclusion: immigrants have so many times  proven to be a bad effect to the economy,

all of these are true and I 100% agree with them all, and for the sake of it I'll say it again, the banned countries are war-filled countries.
 I'll ask you this, what will happen when the illegal immigrants are over 50% of your country. sure it's good for economy when it's not overflowing. and the guy in the 3rd video supports my first opinion actually.

@Rocklal, Ukraine is also 'war-filled' country, should have banned them also? Many arabic countries including UAE have way over 50% of immigrants. Not to mention Singapore who is thriving with its almost 50% immigration rate.

@Rocklal, Ukraine is also 'war-filled' country, should have banned them also? Many arabic countries including UAE have way over 50% of immigrants. Not to mention Singapore who is thriving with its almost 50% immigration rate.

once again, in the beginning this was called a "Muslim ban", and after banning these 7 countries it was changed to "preventing potential danger", oh? then why not ban Saudi Arabia the nest for the terrorists>>>>>> same reason for not banning other countries, if that's not the case for Ukraine then its still debatable, because neither one of us knows about whether this was true or not, (we are debating theories here you know).

now for your second point about, UAE  don't have over 50% illegal immigrants, I would bet that most of them are workers and buisnessmen. well for now I have to go

Quote from: Il Skill L on February 18, 2017, 04:23:37 pm

@Rocklal, Ukraine is also 'war-filled' country, should have banned them also? Many arabic countries including UAE have way over 50% of immigrants. Not to mention Singapore who is thriving with its almost 50% immigration rate.

once again, in the beginning this was called a "Muslim ban", and after banning these 7 countries it was changed to "preventing potential danger", oh? then why not ban Saudi Arabia the nest for the terrorists>>>>>> same reason for not banning other countries, if that's not the case for Ukraine then its still debatable, because neither one of us knows about whether this was true or not, (we are debating theories here you know).

now for your second point about, UAE  don't have over 50% illegal immigrants, I would bet that most of them are workers and buisnessmen. well for now I have to go

This debate is really fascinating so please if you could, try to organise your arguments a little better. It's kind of hard to keep track of what are you trying to say.

Trump stated the idea behind the ban as "protection from foreign terrorist entries." Yet he failed to realise that many families who already had permits to live in the states were also denied access to their homes. This left people feeling discriminated and hence naming the ban "muslim ban." The ban was rushed and very robust way to deal with the potential threat of terrorism in the United States. Remember 9/11? The most devastating act of terrorism in the 21st century? 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Was Saudi Arabia one of the 7 countries banned? No.

"if that's not the case for Ukraine then its still debatable, because neither one of us knows about whether this was true or not" Please clarify that, I'd love to weigh in on the Ukraine subject.

And I never talked about illegal immigrants. That's the issue, governments are yet to find a way to blend in immigrants into our society. Make them work, make them pay the taxes. To stop immigrants from radicalising you have to make them feel as part of the society. And hence Singapore and UAE come into play.

This debate is really fascinating so please if you could, try to organise your arguments a little better. It's kind of hard to keep track of what are you trying to say.

Trump stated the idea behind the ban as "protection from foreign terrorist entries." Yet he failed to realise that many families who already had permits to live in the states were also denied access to their homes. This left people feeling discriminated and hence naming the ban "muslim ban." The ban was rushed and very robust way to deal with the potential threat of terrorism in the United States. Remember 9/11? The most devastating act of terrorism in the 21st century? 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Was Saudi Arabia one of the 7 countries banned? No.

Using that logic, he may have as well banned Japan for the attack on Pearl Harbor, Austria and Germany for Hitler, Canada for Bieber, Russia for Soviet Union and so on.
Political moves aren't made as revenge of what has been done in the past, they are made to try to influence what can be expected in the future. So who was behind 9/11 is completely irrelevant for as long as these people are not free and are not planning to commit another terrorist act. This is a very weak argument, as the point of the ban was to prevent terrorist attacks.
Also Trump did not name the 7 countries, the law that he signed referenced to a law that Obama created.

"if that's not the case for Ukraine then its still debatable, because neither one of us knows about whether this was true or not" Please clarify that, I'd love to weigh in on the Ukraine subject.

Trump has implied that he may be willing to lift sanctions against Russia if Russia pulls its troops from Ukraine, not every war is the same and Ukraine is not in war with US (while the countries from where immigration was banned are), so there's no point in treating Ukraine as if it was a threat to US.

And I never talked about illegal immigrants. That's the issue, governments are yet to find a way to blend in immigrants into our society. Make them work, make them pay the taxes. To stop immigrants from radicalising you have to make them feel as part of the society. And hence Singapore and UAE come into play.

That's why temporary immigration bans make sense, until we find out whether immigrants are willing to integrate into the society (because not all of them are) and then figure out how to help them integrate into the society.
The way European countries have handled the refugee crisis truly is a disaster, there was a policy for how refugees are to be handled and that policy was completely ignored, if it had been followed then most of the problems could've been avoided.

As for Singapore one of the reasons it remains safe is due to a selective immigration policy and them only accepting highly educated migrants, who are less likely to commit crimes. This is not how Western countries handle immigration, although we should, considering that Western countries no longer benefit from low-skilled migrants as there are plenty of unemployed people already and these migrants would only add to that number. But the argument against only accepting highly educated migrants is that if we only accept the brightest people from other countries then it will hurt the countries from where these immigrants are coming from and it certainly will.



Hail the God-Emperor!

You do realise the borders are not open and everyone are let in? US has a very thorough and secure vetting system and it can take up to 10 years to immigrate to the Murica. Now think that you finally have passed all the requirements to immigrate to the US and then they just tell you to piss off for no reason whatsoever. Also it bans people from enetering the USA who had a green card and were out of the country for some reason. The whole system is based on being guilty until proven innocent.
Yet its a lot easier to get a gun than immigrate to the USA. Perhaps we're focusing on the wrong problem?

You call my statement a weak argument meanwhile you bring Justin Bieber into the conversation? Neither Hitler nor Justin Bieber committed an act of violence in which thousands of people were killed on US soil. And no, it is not a weak argument as Saudi Arabia is still considered one of the funders behind Al-Qaeda, which by the way is a terrorist group and therefore a potential threat to the United States.
Obama only named these 7 countries as "countries of concern." The ban itself came from Trump administration.

Ukraine is not in war with US (while the countries from where immigration was banned are)

Say what. In what world are these 7 countries "in war with US?"

Trump has implied that he may be willing to lift sanctions against Russia if Russia pulls its troops from Ukraine

Actually more recently the US clearly stated that the sanctions against Russia will be lifted only once Crimea is returned to Ukraine.

The sanctions against Russia have hurt European countries more than they've hurt Russia itself. They're fully capable of surviving all by themselves because of how massive they are. Most of the Eastern European countries are having recession, Finland included, because of how big object of export Russia is.

I also don't want to say straight up banning all immigrant from those countries is a good thing, but looking at how many terrorist attacks we saw in Europe last year, you can't possibly deny that tightening up the immigration policy isn't a completely bad thing.

The sanctions against Russia have hurt European countries more than they've hurt Russia itself. They're fully capable of surviving all by themselves because of how massive they are. Most of the Eastern European countries are having recession, Finland included, because of how big object of export Russia is.

I also don't want to say straight up banning all immigrant from those countries is a good thing, but looking at how many terrorist attacks we saw in Europe last year, you can't possibly deny that tightening up the immigration policy isn't a completely bad thing.

The sanctions have hurt European countries - yes
The sanctions have hurt European countries more than russia itself - most likely no

Russia has been living off of it's reserves since the sanctions started plus the fact that oil prices were so low for a long time have hurt Russia very very badly. Though oil prices have gone up recently which is a good thing for them. Europe will adapt quicker to the situation and find new export locations from asia, africa or other european countries. Russia doesn't really have that opportunity right now.

If under 'tightening up the immigration policy' you mean keeping track of all the immigrants and actually knowing who, where and why they are then yes I couldn't agree more.

US has a very thorough and secure vetting system and it can take up to 10 years to immigrate to the Murica.

No, it doesn't, background checks are done by the countries where they're coming from, these countries give the information to the US and people working in US read the information that they provide, there are other steps but this is the one that's supposed to catch the terrorists, if the US can't trust the countries where these people are coming from, perhaps because US has been sending drone strikes on these countries, then there's no reason to assume that any of that information is accurate. The amount of time it could take to immigrate is irrelevant, because they are not spending these years doing background checks.

Now think that you finally have passed all the requirements to immigrate to the US and then they just tell you to piss off for no reason whatsoever. Also it bans people from enetering the USA who had a green card and were out of the country for some reason. The whole system is based on being guilty until proven innocent.

Minor inconvenience.

The whole system is based on being guilty until proven innocent.

Sure, why not? The people wanting to go to US are not citizens, they don't have any rights to go to US. Also that's how it works with every country, that's the whole reason they ask the country where the immigrant is coming from to do a background check on the person and 'prove them innocent' before they're allowed entry.

Yet its a lot easier to get a gun than immigrate to the USA. Perhaps we're focusing on the wrong problem?

No, a law for gun control in the US would be impossible to enforce, there are too many guns, take away a million guns and you would change nothing, take away 2 million, still nothing, take away 5 million, nothing. Could they confiscate a million guns? No way, the riots would be worse than the ones from the Antifa that are going on right now.

You call my statement a weak argument meanwhile you bring Justin Bieber into the conversation? Neither Hitler nor Justin Bieber committed an act of violence in which thousands of people were killed on US soil.

I already explained that the countries were not named because of what people from these countries had done in the past, but instead Obama named them because these countries are in war with the US.

And no, it is not a weak argument as Saudi Arabia is still considered one of the funders behind Al-Qaeda, which by the way is a terrorist group and therefore a potential threat to the United States.

Since 1979 US funded and armed Afghan Jihadists which contributed to the creation of Al-Qaeda, why don't you blame Obama for not naming US as a country of concern? Also how would banning immigration from Saudi Arabia stop them from funding Al-Qaeda? It wouldn't and that's why it's a weak argument. Just like with Ukraine, this is not the way to deal with this issue. These issues need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Obama only named these 7 countries as "countries of concern." The ban itself came from Trump administration.

That's what I said, Trump did not name these countries, why are you blaming Trump for the countries that were picked when it was Obama who picked them? I also explained why a temporary ban may be a smart move, I don't know if the pros outweigh the cons or not but the point is that there are pros and cons, he had to make a decision and no one knows whether it was the right one.

Say what. In what world are these 7 countries "in war with US?"

In this one, Obama's was ordering drone strikes on all of them except for Sudan. If that's not war then I don't know what is. It's fairly reasonable to expect that some people from these countries would try to kill Americans and that these countries would be willing to help with that.

Actually more recently the US clearly stated that the sanctions against Russia will be lifted only once Crimea is returned to Ukraine.

Same thing. There's no point in banning Ukraine, because it's an ally of US, the countries that Obama was bombing are not.

instead Obama named them because these countries are in war with the US

No, Obama also named those countries because of the "threat of foreign terrorist fighters."

why don't you blame Obama for not naming US as a country of concern?

I assume you're being ironic here and I'm not even going to continue that one.

Also how would banning immigration from Saudi Arabia stop them from funding Al-Qaeda?

In a perfect world Saudi Arabia would want to keep the good relations with US and cut the funding of Al-Qaeda in order to show that they value western politics.

why are you blaming Trump for the countries that were picked when it was Obama who picked them?

I'm not blaming Trump for picking the countries. I'm blaming him for banning whole countries from entering the states including people who already had permits to live there. There are more humane ways to deal with immigration than straight up ban.

If that's not war then I don't know what is.

So in your opinion Estonian Republic was in war with Iraq and Afghanistan also?

Quote from: Rocklal on February 19, 2017, 12:33:58 pm

Quote from: Il Skill L on February 18, 2017, 04:23:37 pm

@Rocklal, Ukraine is also 'war-filled' country, should have banned them also? Many arabic countries including UAE have way over 50% of immigrants. Not to mention Singapore who is thriving with its almost 50% immigration rate.

once again, in the beginning this was called a "Muslim ban", and after banning these 7 countries it was changed to "preventing potential danger", oh? then why not ban Saudi Arabia the nest for the terrorists>>>>>> same reason for not banning other countries, if that's not the case for Ukraine then its still debatable, because neither one of us knows about whether this was true or not, (we are debating theories here you know).

now for your second point about, UAE  don't have over 50% illegal immigrants, I would bet that most of them are workers and buisnessmen. well for now I have to go

This debate is really fascinating so please if you could, try to organise your arguments a little better. It's kind of hard to keep track of what are you trying to say.

Trump stated the idea behind the ban as "protection from foreign terrorist entries." Yet he failed to realise that many families who already had permits to live in the states were also denied access to their homes. This left people feeling discriminated and hence naming the ban "muslim ban." The ban was rushed and very robust way to deal with the potential threat of terrorism in the United States. Remember 9/11? The most devastating act of terrorism in the 21st century? 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Was Saudi Arabia one of the 7 countries banned? No.

"if that's not the case for Ukraine then its still debatable, because neither one of us knows about whether this was true or not" Please clarify that, I'd love to weigh in on the Ukraine subject.

And I never talked about illegal immigrants. That's the issue, governments are yet to find a way to blend in immigrants into our society. Make them work, make them pay the taxes. To stop immigrants from radicalising you have to make them feel as part of the society. And hence Singapore and UAE come into play.

yeah that's what I was saying, but it's just my bad habit that made this complicated. what I was saying is that a really high possibility for why trump never banned Saudi-Arabia is because they have economic relations for oil and such

lock her up
and no muslims ever

It is very simple to say that i hate the new Donald J Trump, because they know im a muslim arabian and i will hate him

My answer is NO, Here is the thing
I do not hate Trump and Neither Hillary, Both of them are trash cans and none of them deserved the presidency(MY EYE VIEW)


Just to all those muslims around there, i know you are probably 80% Sunni muslims, I'm not, I'm Shai muslim and i live in the UAE.

I was VERY happy when Donald Trump took the presidency, because Trump described Saudi arabia in the following quotes
'Saudi Arabia is a cow that is flowing gold around, Once the gold is gone, See what happens'

He described Saudi in the following statements, and i'm just waiting for him to make steps into Saudi arabia as rock described it 'Nest of Terrorism'

Quick reps to Skill.... If you think that immigrants in our country get to travel to America on free charge, Think once again. No
Our Govs never EVER allows anyone random cheeky immigrant to get the Emirates Passports unless you are Local.

So nothing will happen to Precious America.



My personal opinion about this jack crap
I do not care who takes the presidency, But in my view Neither Donald Trump OR Hillary Clinton deserved the presidency.
And Trump cannot do jack crap in UAE, He is working with the Rolls Royce company here in Dubai, And if he decides to ban us, As CEO of that company said 'Trump will ban all muslims, Why should we work with him if he does that'
Personally i'm very disappointed on him not banning UAE. and i knew in the first place he won't ban us. He has a business here L.

both of them are monkey crap, but i'll take Trump over Hillary any day of the week