Political Roundtable Part XIII

[Induveca]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

The issue isn't Muslim immigration, or wanting to live in freedom. That's emotion getting in way of an obvious problem. The 7 countries the President is attempting to temporarily block (except Iran, who supports the 5 of the other 6) are all in civil wars where one side is a known/active/brutal Islamic terrorist organization who all encourage the killing of civilian Westerners in their rants. Their governments are completely unstable at best, or they are or are near failed states.

Not sure why that's hard for people to admit this is not an illogical step, until the countries stabilize and aren't completely, or partially run by major terror groups the risk is far greater than the reward.

And the response of "Muslim ban" is willful ignorance.
Just go to JFK or Dulles and watch airlines from the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, India (they have a top 10 Muslim population) arrive daily.

Well, if it was based on anything, you might be able to make an argument. But we know this approach was done with literally no input from any agency or intelligence organization. It was based on Steve Bannon's gut. Worse, they tried to sell it using Obama's credibility for unrelated actions he took earlier.

Bottom line, there was no basis for the executive order. There couldn't have been as it literally wasn't based on anything. The choice of countries was clearly random from a security standpoint. Worse it was incredibly detrimental for ongoing operations in the case of Iraq.

Just imagine if the President's policy was based on facts, with coordination from diplomats and intelligence officers, not to mention people with legal degrees?

And its great that we're off of Muslims hating freedom. That is a good change.

Sfam, I have a ton of experience dealing in predominantly ME Muslim nations going on a decade. As do you, nothing I say below will come as a surprise. However, doesn't it discount your claim these bans were done without any research?

Many of the US' closest allies in the ME have had several similar laws against the same countries.

For instance Kuwait has refused entry since 2011 for large portions of Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Afghani citizens. This isn't a temporary ban to enact stricter vetting, it's literally illegal for them to set foot in Kuwait unless you hold certain degrees or jobs. The reason? Terrorism concerns. It's not an outright ban, but in reality keeps radicals far away.

The UAE (our closest ME Muslim ally) has at various times banned visas or entry of citizens of all the same nations Trump has targeted. Currently, every one of those nations are under strict watch and nearly zero visas being issued unless they are highly educated and hold a job in the UAE in 7 categories (doctor, engineer etc).

Qatar has done the same in the past, and currently, as has Bahrain. This approach isn't unprecedented, it's extremely common even in wealthy ME *muslim* countries.

They want to keep radicals out of their borders, and when a civil war is occurring in a Muslim country, visa issuances are typically ceased and reentry impossible, or possible only under certain employment conditions.

Even the US has had similar policies in place against those countries prior to Trump. A lot of this is willful or ignorant outrage. The 90 day complete ban was harsh, but requiring a rescreening isn't unprecented by any means. The US had actually been doing this quietly prior to Trump's election. The Obama administration kept it quiet though, but actually followed the lead of the UAE etc.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

[sfam]

Indonesia has moved towards democracy from a military dictatorship

It's not perfect but it is the largest Muslim populated country on earth with substantial minority communities

The Saudi influence is always a concern and since the 1990s the extremist groups who have gone to Jakarta, Bali, etc are espousing the Saudi ideology

There's push back though

I missed the original post, but the issue from WWI time-frame is the random partitioning the British Empire undertook at the end of the war. That is absolutely still a key and driving factor for the hostilities of the middle east for every generation since. Just take the Kurdish peoples who were randomly divided between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The number of conflicts caused by this alone is extraordinary.

EDIT: Yes, same point.

You should go visit those countries and tell them that diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. I don't think they got the memo.

Actually I've decided to start here in the US with people like you. Diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. Our nation is a country of immigrants. This is our strength.

[tontoz]

I missed the original post, but the issue from WWI time-frame is the random partitioning the British Empire undertook at the end of the war. That is absolutely still a key and driving factor for the hostilities of the middle east for every generation since. Just take the Kurdish peoples who were randomly divided between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The number of conflicts caused by this alone is extraordinary.

EDIT: Yes, same point.

You should go visit those countries and tell them that diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. I don't think they got the memo.

Actually I've decided to start here in the US with people like you. Diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. Our nation is a country of immigrants. This is our strength.

So if it is a good thing then why are those countries fighting all the time? I guess it is only a good thing when it is convenient for you.

[sfam]

The issue isn't Muslim immigration, or wanting to live in freedom. That's emotion getting in way of an obvious problem. The 7 countries the President is attempting to temporarily block (except Iran, who supports the 5 of the other 6) are all in civil wars where one side is a known/active/brutal Islamic terrorist organization who all encourage the killing of civilian Westerners in their rants. Their governments are completely unstable at best, or they are or are near failed states.

Not sure why that's hard for people to admit this is not an illogical step, until the countries stabilize and aren't completely, or partially run by major terror groups the risk is far greater than the reward.

And the response of "Muslim ban" is willful ignorance.
Just go to JFK or Dulles and watch airlines from the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, India (they have a top 10 Muslim population) arrive daily.

Well, if it was based on anything, you might be able to make an argument. But we know this approach was done with literally no input from any agency or intelligence organization. It was based on Steve Bannon's gut. Worse, they tried to sell it using Obama's credibility for unrelated actions he took earlier.

Bottom line, there was no basis for the executive order. There couldn't have been as it literally wasn't based on anything. The choice of countries was clearly random from a security standpoint. Worse it was incredibly detrimental for ongoing operations in the case of Iraq.

Just imagine if the President's policy was based on facts, with coordination from diplomats and intelligence officers, not to mention people with legal degrees?

And its great that we're off of Muslims hating freedom. That is a good change.

Sfam, I have a ton of experience dealing in predominantly ME Muslim nations going on a decade. As do you, nothing I say below will come as a surprise. However, doesn't it discount your claim these bans were done without any research?

Many of the US' closest allies in the ME have had several similar laws against the same countries.

For instance Kuwait has refused entry since 2011 for large portions of Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Afghani citizens. This isn't a temporary ban to enact stricter vetting, it's literally illegal for them to set foot in Kuwait unless you hold certain degrees or jobs. The reason? Terrorism concerns. It's not an outright ban, but in reality keeps radicals far away.

The UAE (our closest ME Muslim ally) has at various times banned visas or entry of citizens of all the same nations Trump has targeted. Currently, every one of those nations are under strict watch and nearly zero visas being issued unless they are highly educated and hold a job in the UAE in 7 categories (doctor, engineer etc).

Qatar has done the same in the past, and currently, as has Bahrain. This approach isn't unprecedented, it's extremely common even in wealthy ME *muslim* countries.

They want to keep radicals out of their borders, and when a civil war is occurring in a Muslim country, visa issuances are typically ceased and reentry impossible, or possible only under certain employment conditions.

I've been working directly on violent extremism issues for the past few years and have visited some of these countries, and certainly agree with the levels instability encountered in many of these places - I am not arguing we should consider them tourist destinations (although the food in Iraq is F'ing AMAZING!!!). I've also spent a number of years working at the State Department. The bold face lies told by Republicans who know better about the current Syrian vetting process are pretty extraordinary.

Our vetting is quite different from the UAE's. The fact that every US airline has their own security procedures in the airports there to duplicate UAE's sort of makes this clear. Regarding Syria, it literally takes 18 months and multiple interviews. Trump took an extraordinary step to do a block such as this, again, especially when done without basis - the surrounding messaging made clear this was a Ban. The other countries aren't as extreme, but its a flat out lie to imply as some Republicans have we have virtually open borders with them.

Again, if we are talking about actual security procedures to strengthen the safety of the US citizens, we can debate a lot of things. But I will tell you that virtually to a person, nobody working on violent extremism issues thinks ostracizing Muslims in the US and internationally with our partners abroad will lead to anything but catastrophe. This is how that Muslim band was received in the US and worldwide. In no way did it make us safer. Instead, it helped a sagging ISIS at the beginning of the Mosul conflict with some incredible propaganda.

As for the research done for this order, both the leaks and the White House staffers made clear, it was Miller and Bannon and little else putting this EO together. If research was done, I doubt the same 7 countries would have been chosen. More to the point, had they done an actual analysis of alternatives, I'm pretty positive they might have chosen a more comprehensive strategy. Instead, they got their marching orders to start the Muslim Ban.

[sfam]

You should go visit those countries and tell them that diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. I don't think they got the memo.

Actually I've decided to start here in the US with people like you. Diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. Our nation is a country of immigrants. This is our strength.

So if it is a good thing then why are those countries fighting all the time? I guess it is only a good thing when it is convenient for you.

Were down to nonsense statements here. Really not sure what you intended with this, but, um, OK.

[Induveca]

Why do you keep calling it a Muslim ban? You know that's a complete falsehood. You make some good points in your statement, ones I agree with, but ending it with "Muslim ban"?

It is 7 countries, where many already had their visas revoked just last year and required to be re-interviewed due to terror issues.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[tontoz]

Actually I've decided to start here in the US with people like you. Diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. Our nation is a country of immigrants. This is our strength.

So if it is a good thing then why are those countries fighting all the time? I guess it is only a good thing when it is convenient for you.

Were down to nonsense statements here. Really not sure what you intended with this, but, um, OK.

Nonsense is when you use multiculturalism as an excuse for wars in the ME while saying it is a good thing here. Why would separating Kurds a hundred years ago be a cause of conflict today if multiculturalism was a good thing?

Do you really not see the problem here?

[sfam]

Why do you keep calling it a Muslim ban? You know that's a complete falsehood. You make some good points in your statement, ones I agree with, but ending it with "Muslim ban"?

It is 7 countries, where many already had their visas revoked just last year and required to be re-interviewed due to terror issues.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

That might be the case if both the President AND his spokeman didn't call it a ban. They DID. The fact that they blamed the press later for them calling it a ban led to a pretty funny skit on SNL you might want to check out.

This was Trump's campaign promise. He EVEN said he was giving preference to Christians. To say it wasn't a ban is in fact the falsehood, as the 9th circuit court decision proved.

[sfam]

So if it is a good thing then why are those countries fighting all the time? I guess it is only a good thing when it is convenient for you.

Were down to nonsense statements here. Really not sure what you intended with this, but, um, OK.

Nonsense is when you use multiculturalism as an excuse for wars in the ME while saying it is a good thing here. Why would separating Kurds a hundred years ago be a cause of conflict today if multiculturalism was a good thing?

Do you really not see the problem here?

I see you putting up churn for the sake of argument. That's it. If there's a difference from trolling, I'm not seeing it.

[tontoz]

I see you putting up churn for the sake of argument. That's it. If there's a difference from trolling, I'm not seeing it.

Then let me be more direct. Why would separating Kurds a hundred years ago lead to generations of conflict?

Just take the Kurdish peoples who were randomly divided between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The number of conflicts caused by this alone is extraordinary.

[gtn130]

i warned yall about engaging with my man tontoz

[tontoz]

i warned yall about engaging with my man tontoz

It is comical watching the lengths you guys go to in order to avoid addressing the elephant in the room.

[Induveca]

Why do you keep calling it a Muslim ban? You know that's a complete falsehood. You make some good points in your statement, ones I agree with, but ending it with "Muslim ban"?

It is 7 countries, where many already had their visas revoked just last year and required to be re-interviewed due to terror issues.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

That might be the case if both the President AND his spokeman didn't call it a ban. They DID. The fact that they blamed the press later for them calling it a ban led to a pretty funny skit on SNL you might want to check out.

This was Trump's campaign promise. He EVEN said he was giving preference to Christians. To say it wasn't a ban is in fact the falsehood, as the 9th circuit court decision proved.

That's completely contradictory and dishonest for someone with your background. On one hand you admit it's just 7 countries, and it *is* 7 countries. It was a 90 day "ban" on 7 countries not a "Muslim ban".

Again, this is what started it all. DHS tightened the screws on those 7 nations substantially in February of 2016. It voided visas until they were re-interviewed and obtained a secure passport from their country with verifiable biographical information.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

You claim you pride yourself on "bringing people together", but pushing a false narrative you've acknowledged as false does the exact opposite.

[dckingsfan]

It's an interesting article, but not particularly persuasive. I think it's a good point that the skilled H1-B immigrants boost the economy, but then they slickly tried to give the impression that it was ALL immigrants who boosted the economy.

I don't think so - he even made reference to family immigration as a problem. I think he clearly understands the issue with unskilled immigrants.

As I said before, with the way our society is constructed, it is ONLY the skilled people who contribute more in taxation than they consume in benefits. So bringing in a bunch of relatively low skill immigrants from Latin America, even if they're good, hard working people, is likely going to cost society more in health care, welfare, education, etc. than will be gained in taxation.

We are in agreement on that point.

Another point. They argue that birth rates are dropping and that's a justification for more immigration. But I don't think that they've considered that the drop in birth rates could be partially caused by immigration. More immigration means more population density, higher housing costs, higher education costs, and more taxpayer money going to infrastructure expansion. Also, lots of formerly "good schools" become more mediocre since immigrants of Latino descent tend to have lower test scores and a greater need for services like bilingual education. Existing Americans are then forced to pay for private school. That is cost prohibitive so the response is to have no children or fewer children.

On that one we disagree, there is no study that correlates immigration for decreased birthrates in the US. But even if that is true - if you cut immigration now before the birthrate changes, you would be hosed. Again, I am saying skilled immigrants not unskilled.

Why not simply implement some policies that help encourage middle class people to have more kids? We could push bigger child credits and exemptions, public funding for day care, heck even some PSA's to encourage more children.

It still wouldn't fix the short-term (at least the next 10 years) problem.

That seems a much more prudent idea then importing more low skill immigrants from the third world who tend to cost more than they produce.

There is no cost-effective low-skilled immigration.

Again, I'm in favor of skilled immigration. Keep recruiting those college graduates. But I don't buy the argument that unskilled immigration is good for America.

I think that is his point

And that is the trouble with the Trump policy. It doesn't take into account the high-skilled immigration that we need to get to Trump's growth goal.

[FAH1223]

Watch on YouTube

Both Marcus and Stephen are right. Joaquin brings up an interesting perspective, as well.

A new form of capitalism took over with de-industrialization in the early 1980s and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We saw it with structural adjustment on third world countries riddled with debt. Until 1991, there was an ideological competition between capitalism and socialism/communism. A large part of this competition was to show the people in the East that the standard of living of the people in the West was higher, therefore the western system was better for the people. Radio Free Europe, Radio Svoboda, and Voice of America were helping drive this conclusion home. The goal was obvious - people in the East should revolt against their system - not because of ideology and politics but because of their material status - and the system, together with the Soviet Union would collapse.

This is pretty much what happened, except that the Soviets were well aware of this plan and took time to prepare a controlled transformation to a new system. Perestroika was part of this transformation and the modernization of Russian system was perfectly executed. This is why western elites hate Russia and president Putin so much - their globalization agenda has been derailed or at least severely delayed. This is also why the military option has replaced political and economic strategies of western expansion.

After 1991, when the Soviet Union and communism collapsed, the ideological competition was over, and western elites began to remove the red carpet from the path of Western societies. High standard of living in the West was no longer needed as an ideological weapon. Consequently, - (in the words of Michael Parenti) - "capitalism with human face was replaced with capitalism in your face". Offshoring and outsourcing, deregulation, monopolization, privatization, uncontrolled price gouging, the end of democracy, human rights, and consumer protection, the corruption of political system, the disregard for international law, the austerity measures, the introduction of a police state in the West - all these changes aim at maximizing profits of the elites at the expense of the people and all can be directly attributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and rolling back of the red carpet in the West. What we have now in the West is a predatory capitalism, capitalism in its purest form.

In a rich country people should be rich. A system that "improves its economy" at the expense of the people is a colonial system.

[gtn130]

From The Onion or a real CPAC panel?

"If Heaven Has a Gate, A Wall & Extreme Vetting, Why Can't America?"

Spoiler:

[sfam]

I see you putting up churn for the sake of argument. That's it. If there's a difference from trolling, I'm not seeing it.

Then let me be more direct. Why would separating Kurds a hundred years ago lead to generations of conflict?

Just take the Kurdish peoples who were randomly divided between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The number of conflicts caused by this alone is extraordinary.

If I randomly divided up Spain, France and Germany into different borders, where language and culture groups are mixed and previous capitals now exist in other countries, would you expect there would be conflict as a result?

This in essence what happened.

The difference in a nutshell is this. The US made a conscious decision to become a nation of immigrants, to embrace diversity. These people were carved up by an outside force, which led to situations where majority populations were living in tyranny from minority leaders, horrific series of conflicts, and a continual history of outside meddling. The fact that their religion is Muslim is a side note to this.

[sfam]

Why do you keep calling it a Muslim ban? You know that's a complete falsehood. You make some good points in your statement, ones I agree with, but ending it with "Muslim ban"?

It is 7 countries, where many already had their visas revoked just last year and required to be re-interviewed due to terror issues.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

That might be the case if both the President AND his spokeman didn't call it a ban. They DID. The fact that they blamed the press later for them calling it a ban led to a pretty funny skit on SNL you might want to check out.

This was Trump's campaign promise. He EVEN said he was giving preference to Christians. To say it wasn't a ban is in fact the falsehood, as the 9th circuit court decision proved.

That's completely contradictory and dishonest for someone with your background. On one hand you admit it's just 7 countries, and it *is* 7 countries. It was a 90 day "ban" on 7 countries not a "Muslim ban".

Again, this is what started it all. DHS tightened the screws on those 7 nations substantially in February of 2016. It voided visas until they were re-interviewed and obtained a secure passport from their country with verifiable biographical information.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

You claim you pride yourself on "bringing people together", but pushing a false narrative you've acknowledged as false does the exact opposite.

Yeah, not really following your reasoning. Of course the EO had 7 countries - you're acting like this is some Perry Mason moment - that's completely silly. How does this contradict their own words? We are banning Muslims from these countries, but if you're Christian, come on in!

We have news out today that in fact the Trump administration DID request intelligence to fit the 7 countries, and there is pushback that in fact if you were going to choose 7 countries, this is a really poor list. Bottom line, the policy wasn't based on reality. It was based on ideology and fulfilling Trump's campaign promise of a Muslim ban AS HE AND HIS STAFF STATED.

President Donald Trump has assigned the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Justice Department, to help build the legal case for its temporary travel ban on individuals from seven countries, a senior White House official tells CNN.

Other Trump administration sources tell CNN that this is an assignment that has caused concern among some administration intelligence officials, who see the White House charge as the politicization of intelligence -- the notion of a conclusion in search of evidence to support it after being blocked by the courts. Still others in the intelligence community disagree with the conclusion and are finding their work disparaged by their own department.

"DHS and DOJ are working on an intelligence report that will demonstrate that the security threat for these seven countries is substantial and that these seven countries have all been exporters of terrorism into the United States," the senior White House official told CNN. "The situation has gotten more dangerous in recent years, and more broadly, the refugee program has been a major incubator for terrorism."

This is classic "putting the cart before the horse" stuff. Call it Iraq 2.0. "Here's our policy, now we need intelligence assessments to back this up!"

I kinda mentioned this yesterday. Let the intelligence community conduct an overall assessment and analysis of alternatives for the best options, and present those to the President. This is how a normal White House works.

Get ready for leaks galore if this BS continues.

[tontoz]

I see you putting up churn for the sake of argument. That's it. If there's a difference from trolling, I'm not seeing it.

Then let me be more direct. Why would separating Kurds a hundred years ago lead to generations of conflict?

Just take the Kurdish peoples who were randomly divided between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The number of conflicts caused by this alone is extraordinary.

If I randomly divided up Spain, France and Germany into different borders, where language and culture groups are mixed and previous capitals now exist in other countries, would you expect there would be conflict as a result?

This in essence what happened.

The difference in a nutshell is this. The US made a conscious decision to become a nation of immigrants, to embrace diversity. These people were carved up by an outside force, which led to situations where majority populations were living in tyranny from minority leaders, horrific series of conflicts, and a continual history of outside meddling. The fact that their religion is Muslim is a side note to this.

So in other words different cultures clashed. If the Kurds has their own state, the Sunnis had their own state and the **** had their own state then everything would be fine. But when you throw them all together it creates conflict.

That is my point. Having different cultures together is frequently a recipe for violence, especially when the cultures are incompatible.