And so it begins...

eeguy wrote: »

Does anyone actually believe the Great Wall of America will actually work?

Tunnels under the border that already exist.
People can still arrive on boats.
People can still arrive legitimately and overstay their visas.
There's no way they can afford to build and patrol this thing effectively. This thing is going to be 12 times longer than the DMZ between the North and South Korea, the most heavily guarded border in the world, and people still manage to get through that.

It's hard to know lets wait and see.

Walter H Price wrote: »

It's hard to know lets wait and see.

I'm just wondering would the money be better spent elsewhere. The cost could double or triple NASA's yearly budget.

pilly

Walter H Price wrote: »

yes, because that's factually incorrect hyperbole , greencard holders will be permitted re-entry as will those who hold duel passports with countries such as the UK i.e. Mo Farrah et all , this was clarified yesterday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-green-card-dual-citizens/

Did you actually read that article yeah?

eeguy wrote: »

I'm just wondering would the money be better spent elsewhere. The cost could double or triple NASA's yearly budget.

No doubt its far from the best solution and as you rightly pointed out its not even clear it a workable solution , i think they could have taken far more strategic approaches to the illegal immigrant issue , invest the money in cracking down on business employing illegals etc... but its hard to argue the wall had appeal.

pilly wrote: »

I never said people had the human right to live anywhere but the fact of the matter is that people who have legally applied for and been given a green card and made lives in the USA have the right to return there.

Do you dispute this?

If the democratically elected government chooses to revoke that right, then that right is revoked. Happens all the time. Up until the mid 2000s you had the right to smoke in a pub, now you don't. I don't agree with Trump's plans but to suggest that a democratically elected government doesn't get to change the law if it wants or needs to is ridiculous.

Walter H Price wrote: »

No doubt its far from the best solution and as you rightly pointed out its not even clear it a workable solution , i think they could have taken far more strategic approaches to the illegal immigrant issue , invest the money in cracking down on business employing illegals etc... but its hard to argue the wall had appeal.

They could have invested the money in education programs, so people living on the border wouldn't have to worry about unskilled labour taking their jobs.

I look forward to hearing how thousands of Mexicans are employed building this wall.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the democratically elected government chooses to revoke that right, then that right is revoked. Happens all the time. Up until the mid 2000s you had the right to smoke in a pub, now you don't. I don't agree with Trump's plans but to suggest that a democratically elected government doesn't get to change the law if it wants or needs to is ridiculous.

I think splitting families and preventing people to return home is a on a different level to the smoking ban. Even the smoking ban had plenty of notice and a few weeks to get people used to it.

pilly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the democratically elected government chooses to revoke that right, then that right is revoked. Happens all the time. Up until the mid 2000s you had the right to smoke in a pub, now you don't. I don't agree with Trump's plans but to suggest that a democratically elected government doesn't get to change the law if it wants or needs to is ridiculous.

So the democratically government of Ireland decides tomorrow to take away our right to leave the country that's okay with you?

Marine Le Pen falls into the same category as other potentially destructive forces I mentioned in my post a few pages back. I am diametrically opposed to most of her ideological positions, but I still think her election would be good for European society and good for the world in general. The establishment is currently being kicked in the nuts and ass simultaneously, nothing like a bloody nose to add to its embattledness.

Again, short term pain, long term gain. I truly believe that if our generation has to live through some sh!tty times in order to secure a more free society for future generations, that's worthwhile. Obviously I'm not suggesting that people are voting for these people for that reason, but even if it's just a side effect (while the main intended effects are inarguably nasty and unpleasant) it's still a damn good side effect.

pilly wrote: »

Did you actually read that article yeah?

yeh i did its pretty clear , greencard holders permitted re-entry , sky news , fox , BBC were all confirming the same last night and that duel passport holders could re-enter.

I see no issue with Trumps approach to be honest its 3 months while they work on tightening vetting processes , its a logical approach to be honest its a shame he didn't extend it to all majority Muslim nations particularly Saudi. However i believe the logic in choosing those 7 countries was based on the current travel restrictions against Americans traveling to any of those places due to increased threat to their safety.

I believe travel restrictions to those 7 nations were imposed by the previous Obama administration after he either detestableised or bombed the fcuk out of them.

Gringo180

C. Montgomery Gurns wrote: »

Trump has restricted immigration from countries which have produced lone wolf attackers (Somalia, Afghanistan and Syria) in three countries in 2015 and 2016 (Germany, the USA and the UK).

The biggest terrorist attack on U.S soil since pearl harbour was committed by Saudi nationals. Any reason why there not on the restricted list?

pilly wrote: »

So the democratically government of Ireland decides tomorrow to take away our right to leave the country that's okay with you?

Of course it's not ok with me, that's when I start protesting. However, I'm pretty sure that this would require a constitutional amendment in Ireland, wouldn't it?

Point is though, if the rest of the public democratically voted in favour of it, that's part of living in a democracy - you don't always get your way. You can protest, you can agitate, indeed I strongly advocate all of these things (see my very vocal promotion of water protests on this very website over the last few years) but if the rest of the public don't ultimately follow you, that's democracy. They don't have to, just because one person tells them they should.

Gringo180 wrote: »

The biggest terrorist attack on U.S soil since pearl harbour was committed by Saudi nationals. Any reason why there not on the restricted list?

$$$

pilly wrote: »

So the democratically government of Ireland decides tomorrow to take away our right to leave the country that's okay with you?

if the majority of people vote for it .... but i cant see that happening ever to be honest it's a ridiculous scenario.

Americans voted to block people coming in , the Brits did too in a way with Brexit and a rejection of quotas from Calais , totaly understandable when you look at the social problems being caused in France , Germany, Scandinavia etc... by the recent influx of predominantly economic migrants.

Gringo180 wrote: »

The biggest terrorist attack on U.S soil since pearl harbour was committed by Saudi nationals. Any reason why there not on the restricted list?

Because his asinine ban has nothing to do with security and everything to do with giving his followers a false sense of having achieved something. It's pretty transparent at this stage.

Gringo180 wrote: »

The biggest terrorist attack on U.S soil since pearl harbour was committed by Saudi nationals. Any reason why there not on the restricted list?

There is currently no travel restrictions on americans traveling to Saudi , this list was based not on majority muslim countries as the media are contuinaly going on about , it was based on the list of countries the OBAMA administraion put travel restricions on. this was done because it was felt americans would be in danger in any of those places due to hostility twords the US , probibly due in part to Obama's drone strikes and awful forighin policy in relation to the arab spring and tackling ISIS.

But i suppose Trump is to blame for that too.

Walter H Price wrote: »

There is currently no travel restrictions on americans traveling to Saudi , this list was based not on majority muslim countries as the media are contuinaly going on about , it was based on the list of countries the OBAMA administraion put travel restricions on. this was done because it was felt americans would be in danger in any of those places due to hostility twords the US , probibly due in part to Obama's drone strikes and awful forighin policy in relation to the arab spring and tackling ISIS.

But i suppose Trump is to blame for that too.

To be fair, it was Trump who first referred to this as a Muslim ban, all the way back in I believe 2015. You can't fault his followers for expecting him to keep his word.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be fair, it was Trump who first referred to this as a Muslim ban, all the way back in I believe 2015. You can't fault his followers for expecting him to keep his word.

That's what they voted for , to be honest id say allot are a little disappointed its only 7 countries.

A Little Pony

Grayson wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

This is spot on. Merkel is to blame for this. Trump is responding to her actions in Europe. It is mainly because of her which is why the UK is leaving the EU.

So you're saying that Trump has banned all refugees because Merkel let in loads. And that if Merkel hadn't done that, Trump would be allowing in refugees.

It probably would not be an issue and he would not need to be seen as tough on it. But because of Merkel and her economic migrant policy, he has got room to implement such policies as this 90 day ban.

Kur4mA

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Toddlers have killed more people in the US than terrorists in recent years.

This is terrible but I did a genuine WTF at this post so looked it up and then also genuinely LOL'd when I realised this is a fact...:eek:

Kur4mA wrote: »

This is terrible but I did a genuine WTF at this post so looked it up and then also genuinely LOL'd when I realised this is a fact...:eek:

When you look at the amount of gun violence, gang violence, school shootings, and almost weekly massacres, it amazes me that immigration is the hot topic.

I'll say this, the US is amazing at deflecting attention from homegrown problems onto some other less important, but more emotive causes.

mansize

Merkel's refugee policy isn't the reason the UK is leaving the EU- it's EU citizens moving to Britain that's their issue

Trump is using Merkel as an excuse. What % of refugees to Germany have been charged with a criminal offence??? Let alone convincted

Hank Scorpio

eeguy wrote: »

When you look at the amount of gun violence, gang violence, school shootings, and almost weekly massacres, it amazes me that immigration is the hot topic.

I'll say this, the US is amazing at deflecting attention from homegrown problems onto some other less important, but more emotive causes.

In fairness to Trump, he has called out the gun/gang violence non stop in places like Chicago. Makes a change

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824080766288228352

Kur4mA

eeguy wrote: »

When you look at the amount of gun violence, gang violence, school shootings, and almost weekly massacres, it amazes me that immigration is the hot topic.

I'll say this, the US is amazing at deflecting attention from homegrown problems onto some other less important, but more emotive causes.

Agreed. If they put the same amount of energy and money into fixing their homegrown problems as they put into the PR spin doctoring WAFFLE that gets thrown out by their media, they could achieve some amazing things.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

In fairness to Trump, he has called out the gun/gang violence non stop in places like Chicago. Makes a change

I didn't realise at first how good Trump was at manipulating how shallow media has become.
It takes zero effort to put out a tweet like that, but it takes up so many column inches. He generates so much news that there's no time to focus on a mis-step before something else comes along.
You could see it last week where he held hands with Theresa May. There was no need to do it, but it looked like a strategy where the media could either report on the actual politics of what's going on, or the fact they were holding hands.

Guess which one they went for :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHkbDhzXLV4

Kur4mA wrote: »

Agreed. If they put the same amount of energy and money into fixing their homegrown problems as they put into the PR spin doctoring WAFFLE that gets thrown out by their media, they could achieve some amazing things.

Fixing their homegrown problems involves doing things currently regarded as totally unpalatable by either the American public (gun control, higher public spending for more social programs and better education, etc) or the vested interests which control Washington (drug legalisation, an end to the for-profit justice system, etc). A politician doing anything meaningful to tackle these problems commits either electoral or financial suicide by doing so, so they focus instead on instant gratification, "feel-good" policies which accomplish absolutely nothing but give the illusion of achievement.

Yes Minister summed this up pretty well when describing why Britain would pay £15 billion for a nuclear missile defence system which would most likely never be used and which replaced a perfectly adequate existing system: "The purpose of Britain's defence policy is not to defend Britain - it's to make the British people believe Britain is being defended".

Skip to 4:45 -

I particularly enjoy when he says that it's not to make the Russians believe Britain is being defended - "The Russians know it's not."

sbsquarepants

C. Montgomery Gurns wrote: »

Since the Boston bombings attacks by ISIS inspired jihadis within the US have killed at least 72 people, in attacks involving at least 15 jihadis, 11 of whom are dead.

Have toddlers really killed 72 people in four years? There are 8 million US toddlers per calender year. 72 murders gives them a murder rate roughly on a par with the Republic of Ireland (36 per 4 million)

Those toddlers are much better armed than our soldiers though.
Cos that's what George Washington wants, one nation, armed to the teeth etc etc.:)

eeguy wrote: »

I'm just wondering would the money be better spent elsewhere. The cost could double or triple NASA's yearly budget.

A couple of years back NASA was forced to cancel one of their mars missions, it was too expensive at $5billion or something like that. At the time the total cost of the mission was enough to keep the "war on terror" going for 3 days.
A €20billion wall is chicken feed in the grand scheme of things.