D A V E (tigron_x) wrote in politicartoons,
D A V E
tigron_x
politicartoons

Sabotaging National Security Efforts







Tags: imigration, terrorism
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 87 comments
Yeah, if the president doesn't think the Constitution applies, why should it?
It's not as though we have a government with "Checks and Balances" or anything, right?
Checks and Balances are fine. I love Checks and Balances...just not with the Judiciary ruining it for EVERYONE!!
Ruining what? Unchecked power from one branch of the government? Unintentionally preventing the wasting of time and money to do a ban that will pretty much end up protecting no one?

Also - Just for fun, look up the Alien Land Laws and the Smith Act, and see how well those turned out for the US.
That was my attempt at a Trump tweet imitation. Not a very good one apparently.

Like any good progressive, I send $25 a month to the ACLU.

telemann

1 week ago

blackdwarv

1 week ago

Yeah, Lincoln hated the Constitution too ... just like Obama. But Hillary never followed the law either. She and her sexual deviant husband got disbarred for breaking the law.
Yeah, Lincoln hated the Constitution too ... just like Obama.

What did Obama do that was unconstitutional?

But Hillary never followed the law either. She and her sexual deviant husband got disbarred for breaking the law.

Neither Hillary nor Bill were disbarred. Bill's license was suspended in connection with the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky affair - that, at least, has some truth to it - but Hillary's license was suspended when she failed to keep up with the requirements for keeping it active.
I don't see why the threat of IMMEDIATE DEATH is the benchmark here. How about, you don't want the US to turn into Europe? Simple enough.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
You do realize that the travel ban endangers the US more than it protects it, right?

That it's basically setting up propaganda for ISIS, this like the fucked up attack in Yemen, that killed several children, is like Trump handing out leaflets for ISIS recruiters.

Securing our borders doesn't endanger the US. That's silly.
Let's see, putting out a muslim ban, which gives the idea of the US being against all muslims, thus creating propaganda for ISIS, which makes the US less safe.
Except it wasn't a ban against Mooslims. That's a hyperbolic version of the ban.
So, by the same token, would you say that a poll tax designed to make it harder for black people to vote isn't actually racist, since at least some black people would be able to pay it?

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

hardblue

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

hardblue

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

hardblue

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

hardblue

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

garote

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

jeff_davis1861

5 days ago

oslo

5 days ago

Alienating the Iraqi Sunnis lends support to ISIS, undermines the stability of the Iraqi government, and drives potential allies to the U.S. mission in Iraq away.

Alienating Iranians lends political support to Iran's military hardliners and narrows the political space Iran's already beleaguered moderates have to maneuver.

Barring Syrian refugees passes those populations off on our European allies, who themselves are disinclined to take many more of them. So we're putting strain on our trans-Atlantic ties at the same time we're pushing Europeans to explore options like sending Syrians to Turkey, with all the compromises that itself requires.

The situations in Yemen, Somalia, and Libya are similarly fraught - in those cases, there are U.S.-allied regimes who are trying to fight off multiple factions of insurgents and terrorist groups.

Meanwhile, the people we're flatly trying to bar from entering into the country are already extensively vetted and come from a migrant population that is unlikely to be a primary channel for terrorists to enter the country. If they wanted to enter, in other words, they would find a better way to do it than to spend a couple of years in a refugee camp on the off chance they would be selected for settlement in the U.S.

So the Muslim ban undermines key American security interests while addressing a minute risk of terrorist infiltration. It's a colossally bad idea, as virtually every independent professional in the area has agreed.

Did you just drop the mic? I swear i heard a mic drop.

Yeah, but them not coming here by the boat load is a good thing. They're not welcome. If they want to tear apart their own neighborhoods, they can do that over there. We don't need to put them on welfare thereby funding our own insurgency.

These people will not conform to western culture, especially when you bring them in by the boat load. They'll instead establish their own culture here. America doesn't need to become the next Europe.

There is no reason to accept they'll be any different in America than they have been in Europe. It's safer to just keep 'em out.



Refugees, almost by definition, don't want to tear apart their own neighborhoods. They're literally fleeing that very thing. These are people who didn't want to fight, who just wanted to survive, and found their way to squalid refugee centers miles from their homes. They are not coming to the United States except as a last resort.

You say that "they're not welcome." Well, your attitude isn't welcome either. So who's speaking for the gestalt here? There are, in fact, plenty of places in this country where they are welcome. I'm fine with trying to ensure they end up in those places, where they have strong social support networks and open arms to turn to.

These people will not conform to western culture, especially when you bring them in by the boat load.

This is such an asinine statement, utterly ignorant of how any of this works. Migrants assimilate when they receive the support networks they need to assimilate - language lessons, job training, community mentors, access to schools and financial assistance when needed, etc. They do not assimilate when we ostracize them, bar them from employment, and expect them to get by on their own. The pockets of radicalization and non-assimilation that you find across Europe are happening in precisely those neighborhoods and areas where European politicians have tried to bury migrant communities.

They'll instead establish their own culture here. America doesn't need to become the next Europe.

Again, asinine and ignorant. America is an inherently multicultural place. This is straightforwardly acknowledged even in the most basic "coastal/flyover" distinction that virtually everyone acknowledges currently. But the reality is even more complex: there are pockets of established cultures throughout the country. NYC is unusual in this regard, but it's representative of the nation as a whole: on a typical bike ride, I travel from a very white upper middle class neighborhood, into a gentrified playground for the wealthy, into a more impoverished community of Hasids, then back up into a predominantly black, poorer community, then through an area we call "Little Egypt," then through a Spanish-speaking (presumably Mexican) community, then back through a white middle-class enclave, before returning to my home neighborhood. That's all within probably a five mile radius. Even my home state has significant immigrant communities from Korea and Kenya (to say nothing of the Mexican community built around Nebraska's meatpacking industry or the poorer black communities scattered in pockets in Nebraska's urban centers).

To draw the line at Muslim immigrants out of concern for our "culture" just doesn't make any sense. Their culture is already established here.

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

garote

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

planet_x_zero

1 week ago

tigron_x

1 week ago

planet_x_zero

1 week ago

jeff_davis1861

5 days ago

oslo

5 days ago

I know that some folks may never really listen to your excellent and well-reasoned replies, but let me just say that I appreciate it. I'm glad that there's an intelligent counterpoint being offered here.
Thanks! It would be nice if there were an active, non-cartoon-based community on LJ where this kind of discussion were welcome. But here works!

johnny9fingers

1 week ago

garote

1 week ago

oslo

1 week ago

garote

1 week ago

Now if only his 72 hadn't already been fact checked and found false... Or if only the seven countries were the worst of the worst for sponsoring terrorism...
Hmmm. The national security aspect...

Mike Flynn? Mar-a-Lago?

Pots/kettles spring to mind.

Never mind the international security angle. The selectiveness of confirmation bias becomes increasingly apparent.
Checks and balances are for loser countries.
I just hope these travel bans are reinstated.

We'll be safe from Radical Islamic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold,
I am not sure the deaths of those individuals equates to the over three thousand three hundred on September the Eleventh.