Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Support of first freedoms back to pre-9/11 levels
Topic Started: Aug 23 2004, 11:21 AM (325 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 24 2004, 03:42 PM
Minuet
Aug 24 2004, 12:22 PM
I have one small thing to add to this discussion.

You have also forgotten about legitimate refugees. They often come from war torn countries that would be high on the State Department lists. Unfortunately, 38957, your plan would leave thousands, even millions of refugees with no haven. Compare those lives to the few that you might be risking at home.

And I also speak from personal family experience. In the 1930's and 40's the borders of the US (and Canada  :angry: ) were closed to Jewish immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe. My mother's family was lucky to get to China, but as you know millions of others were not so lucky.

Min, there are other countries... they don't have to come here. These are special times. This isn't bigotry, this is a safety issue.

And other countries don't have the same safety issues?

Sorry, but that sounds very selfish to me. Hey send them all to Canada, Britain, Australia, etc... Just so long as the US is safe.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
The USA is the primary target of the islamic terrorists. Other countries do not have the same safety issues as the USA. Perhaps Britain is a close second, but they are free to take whatever measures are necessary to protect their populace.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Aug 24 2004, 02:12 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 24 2004, 03:42 PM
Minuet
Aug 24 2004, 12:22 PM
I have one small thing to add to this discussion.

You have also forgotten about legitimate refugees. They often come from war torn countries that would be high on the State Department lists. Unfortunately, 38957, your plan would leave thousands, even millions of refugees with no haven. Compare those lives to the few that you might be risking at home.

And I also speak from personal family experience. In the 1930's and 40's the borders of the US (and Canada  :angry: ) were closed to Jewish immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe. My mother's family was lucky to get to China, but as you know millions of others were not so lucky.

Min, there are other countries... they don't have to come here. These are special times. This isn't bigotry, this is a safety issue.

And other countries don't have the same safety issues?

Sorry, but that sounds very selfish to me. Hey send them all to Canada, Britain, Australia, etc... Just so long as the US is safe.

Min, I don't think that Canada was attacked on September 11th, 2001. Canada is not "The Great Satan."

38 is right in that other countries have the right to take whatever measures they need to take... why can't we?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I guess you are both unfamiliar with the bombing of Air India Flight 182

Just to bring you up to speed a bomb was planted on a flight out of Vancouver. Many Indian-Canadians were killed on that flight.

I am not trying to downplay the importance of 9/11 - but I find you are both being very inward looking and are not seeing that these things happen elsewhere as well. And don't bother telling me that a few hundred don't compare to a few thousand. Senseless deaths are still senseless, no matter where they occur.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Aug 24 2004, 03:56 PM
I guess you are both unfamiliar with the bombing of Air India Flight 182

Just to bring you up to speed a bomb was planted on a flight out of Vancouver. Many Indian-Canadians were killed on that flight.

I am not trying to downplay the importance of 9/11 - but I find you are both being very inward looking and are not seeing that these things happen elsewhere as well. And don't bother telling me that a few hundred don't compare to a few thousand. Senseless deaths are still senseless, no matter where they occur.

And it can be argued that because Canada and the West did nothing substantive about that attack in 1985, they unwittingly incouraged the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Okay, then why should they be allowed here in the US and not in Canada?

Canada can make its own provisions for dealing with refugees. So can we.

I don't remember Emma Lazarus saying,

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she.
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled terrorists yearning to kill the infidel,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

I'm sorry if this keeps some legitimate refugees out, but as I've said, times have changed. What if one in a hundred was a terrorist, especially if he/she came from one of those war torn countries.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 24 2004, 05:16 PM
Okay, then why should they be allowed here in the US and not in Canada?


Excuse me, but could you please point out where I said that the US should allow refugees and Canada should not.

Hmmm, I thought so. I didn't say it.

What I did say is that the US isn't the only country affected by terrorism. Canada didn't close it's borders after the Air India bombing. And I don't think the US should change it's ways because of 9/11.

If you change your ways then the terrorists win. Especially in thier home countries where they could possibly take over and make things even more dangerous for the free world.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dwayne
Aug 24 2004, 05:15 PM
Minuet
Aug 24 2004, 03:56 PM
I guess you are both unfamiliar with the bombing of Air India Flight 182

Just to bring you up to speed a bomb was planted on a flight out of Vancouver. Many Indian-Canadians were killed on that flight.

I am not trying to downplay the importance of 9/11 - but I find you are both being very inward looking and are not seeing that these things happen elsewhere as well. And don't bother telling me that a few hundred don't compare to a few thousand. Senseless deaths are still senseless, no matter where they occur.

And it can be argued that because Canada and the West did nothing substantive about that attack in 1985, they unwittingly incouraged the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

I have not said that substantive actions should not be taken. Just that this is one suggestion I do not agree with - for the reasons stated above.

Closing borders means refugees have no where to go. Interesting that Admiralbill alluded to the words on the Statue of Liberty. Here for all of you are the correct words in thier entirety

Quote:
 
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles.  From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips.  "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Aug 24 2004, 06:33 PM
And I don't think the US should change it's ways because of 9/11.

If you change your ways then the terrorists win. Especially in thier home countries where they could possibly take over and make things even more dangerous for the free world.

Agreed, how much of America are we willing to sacrifice to safe guard America? Our history of immigration is a staple to our success, why allow the terrorists destroy that too.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I'm just suggesting closing immigration from a select few countries, not closing immigration all together. Our economy couldn't tolerate ending all immigration, we sit at a National Average of 2.1 fertility (flat line, derivative = 0).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ My concern is those "select few countries" are the ones who need your help (and ours in Canada) the most.

Like Sudan.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Aug 24 2004, 05:41 PM
I have not said that substantive actions should not be taken. Just that this is one suggestion I do not agree with - for the reasons stated above.

I never said you did ... I'm just making a general statement which I felt was a corollary of your comments about the 1985 bombing. The point is a different tact must be taken from that of the past. Diplomacy does not work with people who want to kill you as their end goal and ultimate objective.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I don't disagree with that Dwayne.

Do you have some suggestions?

I would start with checking out student visas VERY carefully before they are issued, a point already made by 38957. I would keep very careful tabs on those students - where they go, who they meet, etc...

And no flight school training allowed ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Why is it that America always has to take the refugees? (Just a blunt question.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Its not just America that takes refugees, we have many people comming to Britain to seek asylum. Some are genuine in fleeing pesecution, some are here to start a better life but try to use the aslyum system to gain entry. Often enough we ask the question 'Why is it that Britain always has to take the refugees?', people camp on the French coast trying night after night to get across to Britain. I dont know why they do that, perhaps its the language, perhaps the culture of our nation as opposed to the French, perhaps its our history. Those that are truely fleeing persecution we welcome. Its an odd thing but I actually feel a sense of pride that people feel we are such a great nation they will try hard to reach us when they could claim asylum in France instead. Its like the people who I saw weaping with joy when they were told they were eligable for British passports, to them it was a precious gift, to me a birthright. I makes you realise how lucky you are to have the freedoms you have.

As for stopping terrorists by restricting entry I dont think it would work. A determined terrorist will find a way round security measures like that. Remember there were al-Qaeda cells in Europe. All you need to do is enter one of those countries, become a citizen with say a British or German passport then go over to the USA as a tourist. Or you could go to Canada and slip across the border from there. You cannot seal your borders to someone who is totally determined, all you achieve is penalising innocent people.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus