POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[beachbum111111]

Didn't FDR shutdown immigration with Japan and Germany during WW2?

[Ad Bot]

[IkeTheGeneric]

Didn't FDR shutdown immigration with Japan and Germany during WW2?

I'm fairly sure he did, but any attempts to google this will lead to a bunch of recent repub. damage control articles. I'd argue that there's a difference considering it was during a world war and it was in the 40s, but that's probably not worth mincing meat over.

[SeventhSandwich]

Didn't FDR shutdown immigration with Japan and Germany during WW2?

Yes, and he put a bunch of unnecessary curfews on Japanese and German immigrants that did absolutely nothing to protect US citizens. There's a reason why Japanese internment camps are remembered as a human rights atrocity and not a 'necessary evil'.

[extremely extreme]

Those are all extremely convincing reasons to get rid of Gitmo. Not to mention the fact that a scarily large number of people held there are strictly not even terrorists. They're just random Arabs picked up on battlefields and hauled off to Cuba.

There are good arguments from both sides about ditching gitmo (I'm not necessarily a big proprietor of keeping it) but, I'm just providing examples of how our constitution doesn't apply to people out of our borders.

I said I imagine so because I don't really care about immigration enough to really look into it and it makes sense that we would have some legal authority over people attempting to immigrate here. You want proof? Go look for yourself.

Your entire argument is dumb anyways. I'm sure as forget not going to interpret our laws to try and make an idiot change his mind. Nothing's gonna be accomplished there.

What's the loving point of an argument if you don't bring any facts to the table, call my argument dumb, and then call me an idiot? I try to be friendly in my arguments and not resort to calling the person stupid just because I don't share the same viewpoint like, I don't care what you believe, nobody is stupid because I don't agree with them. I guess it's good to know that in the future I can just dismiss anything you say as dumb because I don't agree with you. You're a real loving piece of stuff, dude.

[IkeTheGeneric]

What's the loving point of an argument if you don't bring any facts to the table, call my argument dumb, and then call me an idiot?

That should be your hint, your argument is pointless. Literally nobody here can reasonably answer your question on the legality of travel bans. Half of us will be for it, and half of us will be against it. It was shut down, that's the only precedent we have right now. I was just answering one of the common sense points on us having jurisdiction over immigrants, and you can't seem to figure out how to turn that contrarian switch off so now you're demanding proof.

[SeventhSandwich]

There are good arguments from both sides about ditching gitmo (I'm not necessarily a big proprietor of keeping it) but, I'm just providing examples of how our constitution doesn't apply to people out of our borders.

So your argument here is that we should uphold the ban because we've upheld a similar human rights atrocity? Any reason why you think we shouldn't set a good precedent for once?

[IkeTheGeneric]

Also -

I try to be friendly in my arguments and not resort to calling the person stupid just because I don't share the same viewpoint

I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, I just think you're an idiot. I got this idea from reading your posts. This was my conclusion.

[Red Spy]

Also -

I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, I just think you're an idiot. I got this idea from reading your posts. This was my conclusion.

His avatar is confusing to look at

[extremely extreme]

So your argument here is that we should uphold the ban because we've upheld a similar human rights atrocity? Any reason why you think we shouldn't set a good precedent for once?

My reasoning for upholding the ban (and expanding it) is that when you look all across Europe, many countries tried to do good by helping refugees yet now there are many bad people who slipped in with the actual refugees and now they have a lot more love crime and violent crime. The rise in crime being committed by "refugees" has caused many far-right populists to rise to power, anti-Islam vigilante gangs roam the streets at night, and hundreds dead from terror attacks. People are more divided than ever and looking at the state of the US today, I think it's a terrible idea to import any amount of refugees. My beliefs aren't founded on hate or bigotry, my beliefs are founded on love for the people around me and for my country.

[SeventhSandwich]

My reasoning for upholding the ban (and expanding it) is that when you look all across Europe, many countries tried to do good by helping refugees yet now there are many bad people who slipped in with the actual refugees and now they have a lot more love crime and violent crime.

Do you think maybe that's more a result of people flooding in over geographic borders and not being vetted properly? We have a ridiculously thorough system in place for refugees immigrating to the US, and historically we've had very few problems with any of our migrants.

My beliefs aren't founded on hate or bigotry, my beliefs are founded on love for the people around me and for my country.

Why restrict love only to your countrymen? Why not all people?

[IkeTheGeneric]

If you want to worry about potential terrorism, turn your concern to homegrown terrorists who are disenfranchised and already here. The migrants will most likely pose no problems.

[beachbum111111]

Yes, and he put a bunch of unnecessary curfews on Japanese and German immigrants that did absolutely nothing to protect US citizens. There's a reason why Japanese internment camps are remembered as a human rights atrocity and not a 'necessary evil'.

But I thought FDR was a liberal.

[extremely extreme]

Do you think maybe that's more a result of people flooding in over geographic borders and not being vetted properly? We have a ridiculously thorough system in place for refugees immigrating to the US, and historically we've had very few problems with any of our migrants.
Why restrict love only to your countrymen? Why not all people?

Why should we risk it though? It's not like the risk goes away if we put refugees through our vetting system.

[SeventhSandwich]

But I thought FDR was a liberal.

So that means I can't criticize his policies? I didn't realize I had to automatically agree with anyone who shares my political cant.

Why should we risk it though? It's not like the risk goes away if we put refugees through our vetting system.

Because there is effectively no risk. The nativists in our country are so hard-pressed to come up with excuses to kick out migrants that they've literally invented massacres that didn't happen.

We can either accept a negligibly small risk to our country, or we can let literally tens of thousands of innocent people die. If the conservatives are right about us being a 'Christian nation', then the choice is obvious.

[beachbum111111]

I'm fairly sure he did, but any attempts to google this will lead to a bunch of recent repub. damage control articles. I'd argue that there's a difference considering it was during a world war and it was in the 40s, but that's probably not worth mincing meat over.

I mean we are sort of at war with Syria to be fair and in a cold war situation with Iran. If you consider the "war on terror" to be a thing then countries with active insurgency groups could also be considered active threats.

So that means I can't criticize his policies? I didn't realize I had to automatically agree with anyone who shares my political cant.

Do you believe we should have let Japanese and German people into the United States while the USA was actively at war with those countries?