Sup Forums, help me, I think I just got BTFO'd over the travel ban

Sup Forums, help me, I think I just got BTFO'd over the travel ban

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/infolibnews/status/825702406600142848
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

This thread is gonna slide because he's right.

Fucking hell how will the US economy cope without those somali tourists!

But you can look at it this way. Obama was reactionary when it came to terror, Trump was elected as a proactive fighter. Trump promised that there would be no terror attacks on U.S. soil while he was in command, so he is taking PREVENTATIVE action and not REACTING.

Yeah, it blows for innocent immigrants. The world sucks a lot harder for a lot of other people too. America voted to say fuck 'em, we are protecting ourselves.

People like the one in your photo aren't gonna be happy with the "fuck 'em" attitude.

He's being proactive. Yeah, people from the banned countries didn't commit attacks. Here, this is from the Dilbert guy:

>On Twitter I am seeing lots of well-meaning liberals tweet charts showing that no one from the banned countries has ever been a terrorist in the United States. But Trump isn’t trying to solve the PAST. He’s trying to reduce risks in the future. And the future has risks that are unlike the past.

>If you want your president to solve only problems that have already happened in the past, we can ignore any potential climate change issues too. Human activity has never warmed the planet too much in the past, so why worry about it in the future? The point is that we try to stop problems before they happen, not after. Terrorism and climate change are similar in that one narrow way. They are both problems of the future, not the past. You can’t look to history to figure out how to solve either one of them. Dinosaurs didn’t drive cars and ISIS didn’t always have hobby-sized drones that can drop bombs.

They are similar bans, not identical. So why is she expecting them or requiring them to be identical?

Also she is ignoring the ban on all immigration to Iran by Pres. Carter.

She seems to be deluded enough to think that a president cannot make their own precedents on matters of national security. remember they can literally call in the national guard and place entire cities or the whole country on marshal law.

>firstly let me say that restricting immigrations from any country based on the actions of a few is DUMB

>the situations are different, because two iraqi men were involved in terror plots in the USA.

>doing something because of the actions of a few is DUMB (when Trump is in office)

>doing the same thing because of the actions of a few is different (when Obama does it).

Am I getting this straight?

Yes, that sums it up. The mental dissonance is on par with the liberal average.

I get what you're saying but it's not as easy as buying a plane ticket. For these countries, obtaining a visa is not easy and because of the increase terror risk the candidates are thoroughly vetted.

The move was primarily political, drawing lines between allies and enemies. The problem is these aren't the enemies of ordinary citizens. These are the enemies of ((the state)).

Bro tier debating skills senpie

You shouldn't talk politics on facebook. It's a waste of time and effort

How many terrorist attacks have these countries committed?

The system has been working.

But for some reason it's okay that a SEAL died for the country that 9/11'ed us.

>There is a larger risk in radicalizing those who wouldn't have been radicalized otherwise.

Iraq is on the list. If it was okay for Obama to slow Iraqi refugees, it should be fine for Trump to slow Syrian refugees while working with other countries in the region to take care of them.

Furthermore, if Obama can shut the gates because of a terrorist plot in Iraq that didn't kill people, then Trump can shut the gates if he has reason to believe refugees and immigrants pose a threat to national security. People do not have to have died to justify this. Potential harm goes into account. If potential harm did not go into account, there would be no point in blocking immigration due to a plot that had not yet killed anyone.

Why do people think that non-citizens have automatic right to enter any country they want?

If you are not a citizen of a country, that country doesn't owe you fucking shit.

For example Kuwait outright bans passport holders from: Syria, Israel, Iran, Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, from even entering their country, and no one cares because they are brown and their ethics can never be questioned.

OBAMA needs to be arrested on grounds of inciting others to civil unrest and rioting. ARREST democrats that boycott.

Because it was a stupid mistake on his part to only ban those 7. If he wanted to actually make a point and ban countries that he thought were risks, he should have not been such a fucking Jew and banned all of the Muslim ones, not just the ones he isn't profiting from. As others have pointed out, holy fuck pol likes him a lot for how much of a Jew he is

Some claim dual citizens (Iraq-US for example) are banned too.

The countries came from the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015, the restrictions of which are very similar to this. Google and learn and BTFO all the lefties.

I reject the premise muds should come to the west at all

Derp derp. 90 day temporary travel ban.
>can't bother to read the EO
>can't be bothered to see 2011 EO was for 180 days

The thing targets aliens, who are defined as people who are not citizens of the US. So a dual Iranian/US citizen could still go through just fine. Issue that people have is that it affects a lot of families, since many parents are from a banned country but their kid is multi-citizenship

They banned the countries that have the least record keeping and data on their own citizens, which makes total sense because that makes them the hardest to vet.

The guy in OP's pic is spreading disinfo. It doesn't apply to green card holders, everyone with one who has applied for a waiver was granted it.

The argument that no attacks originated from those countries is invalid, it's not a reactive measure it's proactive, and it's not only to prevent terror but to prevent the kind of short and long-term cultural consequences of the refugee crisis already witnessed in Europe.

I'm yet to see a single coherent argument against the ban except "muh feels, muh empathy".

Look, no one likes Muslims! not even the leftists, they just hate Trump and like anything they think the right dislikes. Eventually It's going to come to "get out of our country's or we will kill you all". This is going to happen even in Sweden and Germany or Islam will rule within the next three to four decades.

>leftists

I swear some of them will rise from the grave just to say #notallmuslims.

He is working on putting more on the list. He started with the O's administrations top 7. He said it could take up to 3 weeks to get others approved.

You are retarded if you believe that

they can't be thoriloughly vetted because you can buy official any document you want

>marshal law

Not me, but I saw SJWs think that is the case.

First of all, the ban is to protect america not punish the muslims, and % and ratios are pointless when a single madman can blow himself up in a mall and kill dozens with a simple home-made bomb.
It takes one oversight to cause a tragedy, so there's absolutely nothing wrong with enforcing tighter controls.
Also those numbers are based on the medias, and there are a LOT of attacks who are prevented by the police/national security forces that never gets publicized to avoid spreading panic.
And finally the american government is elected by americans for americans to protect and serve americans, everything else is secondary.

> It doesn't apply to green card holders
It did at first. That had to be later changed by press conference. Same with dual nationals.

Trump is blundering his way through like a kid learning to ride a bike for the first time while claiming to be the BMX world champion.

The ban is counterproductive and only radicalising disenfranchised and inspiring ultra-nationalists, who've already shot up a mosque, albiet in Canada.

So if I'm getting you guys, it's basically that these seven were easiest, with more possibly coming in the future?
I don't have as much of a problem with someone targeting a religion/culture like this, since as much as lefties me wants to ignore it I'm pretty fucking sick of seeing muslims destroy western culture. I just want the reason to be "fuck muslims and what they're doing" and not "let's appease people while still sucking Ahmed's dick for oil money"

lets ban guns over the actions of a few, but lets not ban people who have no idea who they are or there intentions here.

what about europe lol

You have to go back. Stfu, make your own country worth staying in. You'll get no sympathy as a mudslim piece of shit unless your some cuck sweed liberal.

>one post by this ID
sage

Better not say that Muslims are terrorist or else they might become Terrorists.

If you become radicalized because of an immigration ban, all hope was lost for you from the start.

So they caught and Iraqi that bombed some place in Iraq before he got into the USA.

Just because no one from Iraq hasn't bombed us YET means its okay to let them all it.

They're cool bro.

If you fight back they win.

Since when is America obligated to take in anyone? America has a choice to be nice or not. It has been nice, so has Europe, so has Canada and guess what, it hasn't worked out.

I don't hate muslims because a few of them are terrorists, I hate them because their entire culture is a disgusting, third world, anti-western cancer that has absolutely no place in America. There's a reason muslims have only had any significant presence in America in the past 30 or so years, because before that, they weren't even allowed to immigrate to America.

Although only a select few are terrorists, of terrorists, muslims are the most likely to be terrorists.

I'm proud to live in a Western country, as we can see in Europe where Islamic immigration is out of control, Islam destroys Western civilization, I don't give a shit about your pathetic anecdotal evidence of your one muslim friend who is nice.

Jimmy carter and Iran. And pretty much U.S. Immigration policy prior Kennedy. You are welcomed.

Tldr? This is not the first time we have banned countries/peoples from immigration.

Welfare Usage by Middle Eastern Refugees: 91.4% on Food Stamps, 73.1% Medicaid, 68.3% Cash Assistance

twitter.com/infolibnews/status/825702406600142848

Well, he is right. The ban is really nothing more than fuel for libs. It won't realistically stop a single attack on US soil. Plenty of hajis in the country as it is for that to happen anyways.

Plain retardation on Trumps behalf.

It's a positive thing to stop their population from growing

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST LIBS ARE FUCKING STUPID!

THE TRAVEL BAN HAS JACK SHIT TO DO WITH "THE ACTIONS OF A FEW"

THESE ARE THE COUNTRIES THAT WE WILL ENGAGE IN JOINT-OPERATIONS WITH.

IF IT IS A COUNTRY WHOSE LEADER WE WILL NOT ASSASINATE OR OVERTHROW, THAN IT IS A COUNTRY WHOSE REBEL GROUP WE WILL COMPLETELY EXTERMINATE.

WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE WANT TO ACCEPT PEOPLE FROM A COUNTRY WE ARE ABOUT TO EXTREAMLY DESTROY OVER THE NEXT 8 YEARS????

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

*against

DAILY REMINDER

"HELP ME POL I JUST GOT BTFO"

IS NEW

"POL JUST GOT BTFO"

THREAD

>Cut & paste from NPR

He's wrong about the green card thing (they fixed that)

He doesn't mention that Trump's list was created by Obama's admin.

Completely ignores Europe's problems with unregulated refugee migration (violence specifically).

Also, ask him to explain why we shouldn't develop a better vetting process for people who come from countries who's governments are completely destabilized and lack their own internal vetting process.

I'd love to hear that faggot's answer...

>ban travel from terrorist prone countries
>somehow this is a bad thing
it's called preemptive measures
libfags dont learn from their mistakes.
we do

No, it's a great way for getting them undeserved sympathy around the world. Literally any haji attack on burgerstan from now on will be justified in the eyes of mainstream media and their millions of viewers.

Reducing immigration by blanket b&ing even doctors and scientists from going to merica for conferences and shit is just beyond politically retarded and the media is loving every moment of it.

Unless Trump preforms some miracles, he'll be the Hitler of our time in that he will ruin nationalism by making it taboo for another century.

>How many terrorist attacks have these countries committed?
Probably somewhere in the hundreds of thousands. We all agree that Saudi Arabia should be on the list (most of us actually want a real Muslim ban), but then we wouldn't have been able to set up the safe zones. Sometimes realpolitik is a factor.

And look up what hijira actually is. The central story of Islam is creating utopia after pretending to be refugees to conquer a city by migration and incremental power centralization.
Muhammad was kicked out of Mecca, took his followers to Medina (then Yathrib), impressed the Medinans with his non-threateningness and organizational skills, took over the city and exterminated everyone who was like, "hey, you were supposed to be a non-threatening refugee with organizational skills!" Then he built up his power and retook Mecca. This is what is commemorated in the Hajj. Hijira or conquest by migration is more honorable than jihad and carries similar rewards.

>Why do people think that non-citizens have automatic right to enter any country they want?
I wish somebody like Tucker Carlson would ask a prominent leftist this question flat out. I have no idea how they meme'd this idea of no-borders into a commonly held opinion.

You're basically saying let the West get ruined so leftists can be proven wrong. But at that point it'll be too late. Australia supports the ban and so do a handful of other countries.

ENTERING A COUNTRY IS A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT. IF THE GOVERNMENT SEEMS FIT THEY DONT HAVE TO WELCOME YOUR SORRY ASS!

Ayo hol up
*pulls pants down
so wachu sayin is hol up
*grabs dick
wachu sayin is angry birds movie wuz about hajiro n sheeit?

You have no right to enter another country. Said country has no obligation to grant you entry. The US can ban anyone from entering for any reason and MANY countries, especially Muslim countries, have extensive travel bans already in place. Immigration is a privilege.

No, leaf, I am saying that you should have selective immigration, i.e no refugee bullshit. Only already westernized, skilled immigrants. Forbidding someone who's lived in Sweden all their life from even entering the US, just because they're born in Iran and have dual citizenship is retarded, because it serves absolutely no purpose but to give easy talking points to the liberal media.

We want the same result here.

I absolutely agree with you. I look at this as just the start. The dual citizen shit is stupid I agree. America became great by only allowing in Western, white immigrants.

Let's wait for a terrorist attack to happen instead of preventing it right?

Just saying, he takes no skill to use at all.

This is a temporary ban on destabilized countries while new vetting proceedures are implemented. The concern is not necessarily people from these countries, but people pretending to be be from these countries where documentation is untrustworthy.