President of the US Picks

I think one thing we can all agree on is Congress is not going to do a damn thing.

Any and all controversial laws are going to be by executive order. See: Obama, Barack.

Depending on which side of the aisle you occupy you are either going to have zero problem with this…see: ignoring, immigration laws.

Or losing your collective shit…see: immigration halt.

Both of these are probably illegal as shit…but one is justified “THINK OF THE CHILDRENZZ!!” the other is vilified “THINK OF THE CHILDRENZZ!”

The SCOTUS will end up settling most of these decisions, which is why this election will truly shape our country for the next generation.

2 Likes

Not a strong argument. A lot of Saudi students in our university, as well as the Indians, Pakistanis, and others have no intentiom of going back home. It is the same for most universities. There are some the go home yes. For whatever reason (usually family, as the family ties are much stronger than for us Americans for all of the above ethnicities). But there are large numbers that want to stay and do research here. We lead the world, people in graduate school don’t want to go back to a shithole by and large–they want to be successful and thats here.

Secondly, its not just spending on education. Its oil. Saudis played a dangerous game with pil this past year, but if they decide to get other OPEC countries on board they could do real damage there. Oil supply and industry isn’t exactly chump change.

Yup.

Here you go TheRaj

http://trade.gov/press/publications/newsletters/ita_0408/middle-east_0408.asp

So, trade partnerships with the Saudis and UAE, major sponsors of terrorism? I guess it’s ok if they funnel only some of these newly acquired funds to ISIS…

I mean our clothes are made by Chinese children working in sweat shops, so not sure what to say…

unfortunately I don’t have the same time to keep replying to the posts.

Wanted to drop this off though:

Muslim immigrants are importing female genital mutilation into America

Yes they are. However, trade relationship with China makes more sense than with the UAE and/or Saudi Arabia - the Saudis are sponsoring global terrorist organizations who negatively affect all walks of life.

Just remember TSA and the disruptive airport security measures as the direct effect of Saudi actions.

The sooner Saudi Arabia and UAE go bankrupt, the better. The major financial and educational source of extremism would be eliminated, and this whole discussion would be superfluous.

And from an economic, social and security standpoint I believe that’s more important that 15 billions of (mostly) luxury cars and weapons systems sold annually to the Saudis .

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/sau/usa/show/2014/

And the Chinese are some of the worst human rights violators in the world. Why do they get a pass?

While that may be true, the creation of the TSA and additional security measure is the result of many people’s desire for more security at the expense of freedom. That’s on us.

That’s awful optimistic.

We’re discussing a bit more than $15B (from the Middle East that is).

They don’t get a pass. While one can argue that the trade off between lower consumer goods prices and the loss of the US manufacturing base and corresponding blue collar wage stagnation was/is harmful to the US in the medium and long term, with the Saudis and UAE it’s much straightforward.

Yes, the Han Chinese treatment of Uighurs and Tibetans is horrible, but does it affect the West directly?

How much did the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan cost in purely economic terms?

A direct consequence of Saudi funded terrorist attacks, or in the case of the shoe bomber - failed terrorist attacks. People didn’t desire more security prior to 9/11.

Maybe, but behind almost all radicalized groups and individuals you’ll find Saudi money or the manifestation of said money.

For example. it’s astounding how Saudi funded mosques have transformed European muslim communities in a couple of decades.

/[quote=“anon50325502, post:1372, topic:215570”]
We’re discussing a bit more than $15B (from the Middle East that is).
[/quote]

Agreed, roughly $30B of US exports - however, the indirect costs of propping up these Gulf theocracies are enormous, both locally (Syria, Iraq, Yemen) and globally (terrorist threat).

So loppar, you are a highly intelligent pguy and one whose posts I make it a point to read and consider. Good points.

However I don’t think that this tracks the trajectory of the conversation that has been had.

What I’ve been following and responding to looks like the following:

we should ban muslims. > it would have economic repercussion. > no it wouldnt > yes it does > no it wouldnt, name one > cue links on money, oil, > loppar: there are economic repercussions but that doesnt mean theyre unjustified. …

To which I would respond: quite true. but one of the three prongs of the ongoing discussion was the denial that there were any measurable economic recoil, which is incorrect (the other prongs were the enforceability and the constitutionality, which in my view is more important)

1 Like

I understand what you’re saying and mostly agree. I’m fine with cutting Saudi Arabia off. I’m fine with cutting the UAE. I’m fine with cutting many of the gulf states off.

However, what was being discussed, specifically, was the trade implications of a complete (100%) ban of Muslim immigration and travel to the United States. TheRaj mentioned a total ban from some 50 states (I believe that was the figure) and of course there are over 1B Muslims throughout Asia. The link was just one example of the impact such a ban would have on trade. The far reaching ramifications, especially those unintended, are difficult to gauge, but I am pretty confident they would be a net negative for the U.S.

A lot…

I think the money will still be there just from some other source.

Lol, beat me to it. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I agree, I wasn’t advocating ban on Muslims per se, just pointing out the fact that US foreign/domestic policy shouldn’t be dictated by allegedly lucrative trade deals with Gulf dictatorships.

I don’t want to discuss the intricacies of the US constitution as I don’t know much about it, but I would like to point out the potential practical ramifications of the policy - there were many cases where muslim gays and secularists were brutally killed in their countries, some of them hacked to death immediately after being forced to return home after their US student visa expired.

What is necessary, in my opinion, are much smarter vetting procedures for immigrants - just their tribal/cultural/ethnic/social background could provide crucial information to correctly assess the potential risks of allowing them into the country.

I know that Armenia de facto bans muslims from entering and that during the India partition of 1947-48 men were forced to drop their pants at police military checkpoints, but these are isolated instances.

Also, banning Saudis and citizens of UAE and Bahrain would be the only logical scope for such a sweeping entry ban.

And no, a cosmopolitan Lebanese socialite, an Iranian female professor at MIT or Leonardo DiCaprio’s ex girlfriend shouldn’t be lumped together with a bunch of young males of unknown provenance crossing international borders at will or decadently rich sponsors of terrorism or dirt poor Somali tribesmen practicing FGM.

Don’t say the state of Michigan would be better of if this DiCaprio’s ex girlfriend didn’t live there.

1 Like

Eh…if it’s not going to hurt Trump I doubt any of us will be interested. We just want to bash Trump and give Hillary a free ride. I’m sure you understand.

Did you mean push her wheelchair off of a pier?

If so, I agree.

$15.5MM matched.

Wow, look at those odds seems like Hillary is practically a sure thing. Would you like to place a friendly bet with me that Hillary Clinton will never be elected to the Presidency?

You shouldn’t vote for Cruz for one reason and one reason alone. He looks like a ken doll that someone held in front of a fire too long.

1 Like