Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Bud's Message to International Students
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cam" data-source="post: 291036" data-attributes="member: 568"><p>Whiskey_Clear takes over three days to respond to my original comment and it's after an hour that you call out people for "going silent?" Come on, man. Pointing out no one has replied immediately doesn't mean there's an absence of thought. It means I (or anyone else including Whiskey_Clear) didn't bother checking this thread for a couple hours/days or, in the case of [USER=304]@OldJacketFan[/USER], just doesn't want to get roped into it. It doesn't do any good to just throw out unwarranted insults.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'll preface by saying that this has gotten off track of the original topic, which was originally in regard to Georgia Tech students. They are not terrorists. They are students of the Institute you support. They represent the White and Gold (and by proxy the Red, White, and Blue) just as much as you or I do. When an executive order impacts their academic career, as a GT supporter (and I assume alumnus) you <strong>should</strong> support them regardless of their background or nationality.</p><p></p><p>To step away from the GT student situation and get into your points, you need to assess this as a risk evaluation. Since 9/11, as far as I know there hasn't been a single US terrorist attack caused by someone from one of the banned countries. 9/11 was committed by men from four different countries not included on the list. Boston Bombings were Chechnya-Americans. Even the Orlando shooting was an American born and raised person whose parents were from Afghanistan and were moderate Muslims. The point being that we have no previous history of people from these countries hating Americans and being a threat. In fact, by showing compassion and taking in their refugees you are generating a love for America in the people coming here. In contrast, shutting them out logically breeds hatred. You might find this naive, but I feel it shows massive paranoia to assume that some refugees are terrorists in waiting. You have to keep in mind that the FBI is going to closely monitor anyone coming into the country from these nations. The likelihood of any terroristic attacks happening here on US soil is negligible. I am more likely to die in a school shooting, so should I start advocating we kick out white men with histories of mental illness? Of course not.</p><p></p><p>Additionally, this is not something anyone expects to be temporary. So what you find laughable is just people realizing that if you let one order slide, you'll allow precedent to be put in place that can become something much more permanent going forward. Longer duration of bans, more countries added, etc. At which point you could create a very isolationist union, which has its very negative effects. If you're in any way familiar with the technology industry, you know we'll be losing quite a lot of talent there as much of it is not American born. There is legitimate concern for our economy based in Silicon Valley.</p><p></p><p>The main idea though is that this is a humanitarian cause. You're taking people in a war-torn country and providing them with a safe shelter. By refusing their entry, you're acting in a way that can be aptly called "inhumane" and its something that has come to the attention of a lot of world leaders. Very recently we've started to alienate a long time ally in Australia because of our country's stance on this. This boils down to an innocence until proven guilty scenario. I can see how you do not want to allow people in because even just one terroristic attack is going to cause irreparable damage. And I don't disagree. But from a risk analysis standpoint, if in the previous 15 years since the last major terrorist attack with fully open borders we have experienced no damage from these countries, why would we expect something now? That's my logic at work. Trust in our vetting system. Trust in the logic that those being cast out will only hold hatred for those that forced them to move, not for the country that accepted them.</p><p></p><p>Lastly, I have never heard anything about someone having to display some kind of worth to move into the country. I am legitimately curious where you ever heard, read, or saw that information and if you can provide it I would greatly appreciate it. Because as far as I know, that has never been a stipulation for entering the country. My great grandfather emigrated from Greece without knowing the English language and hardly having any education or money. He looked pretty damn worthless on paper, but still did very well for himself here in the US. Plenty of people come to the US without displaying immediate worth and do more good for America than a lot of American born citizens. The point being that you have no idea what value they bring. There are people with PhDs being pushed out. The refugees all lived pretty similar lives to ours before their homes were destroyed. Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google) was a refugee from Russia who came here at age 6. Imagine if we turned his family away because we were paranoid about them being Russian spies.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cam, post: 291036, member: 568"] Whiskey_Clear takes over three days to respond to my original comment and it's after an hour that you call out people for "going silent?" Come on, man. Pointing out no one has replied immediately doesn't mean there's an absence of thought. It means I (or anyone else including Whiskey_Clear) didn't bother checking this thread for a couple hours/days or, in the case of [USER=304]@OldJacketFan[/USER], just doesn't want to get roped into it. It doesn't do any good to just throw out unwarranted insults. I'll preface by saying that this has gotten off track of the original topic, which was originally in regard to Georgia Tech students. They are not terrorists. They are students of the Institute you support. They represent the White and Gold (and by proxy the Red, White, and Blue) just as much as you or I do. When an executive order impacts their academic career, as a GT supporter (and I assume alumnus) you [B]should[/B] support them regardless of their background or nationality. To step away from the GT student situation and get into your points, you need to assess this as a risk evaluation. Since 9/11, as far as I know there hasn't been a single US terrorist attack caused by someone from one of the banned countries. 9/11 was committed by men from four different countries not included on the list. Boston Bombings were Chechnya-Americans. Even the Orlando shooting was an American born and raised person whose parents were from Afghanistan and were moderate Muslims. The point being that we have no previous history of people from these countries hating Americans and being a threat. In fact, by showing compassion and taking in their refugees you are generating a love for America in the people coming here. In contrast, shutting them out logically breeds hatred. You might find this naive, but I feel it shows massive paranoia to assume that some refugees are terrorists in waiting. You have to keep in mind that the FBI is going to closely monitor anyone coming into the country from these nations. The likelihood of any terroristic attacks happening here on US soil is negligible. I am more likely to die in a school shooting, so should I start advocating we kick out white men with histories of mental illness? Of course not. Additionally, this is not something anyone expects to be temporary. So what you find laughable is just people realizing that if you let one order slide, you'll allow precedent to be put in place that can become something much more permanent going forward. Longer duration of bans, more countries added, etc. At which point you could create a very isolationist union, which has its very negative effects. If you're in any way familiar with the technology industry, you know we'll be losing quite a lot of talent there as much of it is not American born. There is legitimate concern for our economy based in Silicon Valley. The main idea though is that this is a humanitarian cause. You're taking people in a war-torn country and providing them with a safe shelter. By refusing their entry, you're acting in a way that can be aptly called "inhumane" and its something that has come to the attention of a lot of world leaders. Very recently we've started to alienate a long time ally in Australia because of our country's stance on this. This boils down to an innocence until proven guilty scenario. I can see how you do not want to allow people in because even just one terroristic attack is going to cause irreparable damage. And I don't disagree. But from a risk analysis standpoint, if in the previous 15 years since the last major terrorist attack with fully open borders we have experienced no damage from these countries, why would we expect something now? That's my logic at work. Trust in our vetting system. Trust in the logic that those being cast out will only hold hatred for those that forced them to move, not for the country that accepted them. Lastly, I have never heard anything about someone having to display some kind of worth to move into the country. I am legitimately curious where you ever heard, read, or saw that information and if you can provide it I would greatly appreciate it. Because as far as I know, that has never been a stipulation for entering the country. My great grandfather emigrated from Greece without knowing the English language and hardly having any education or money. He looked pretty damn worthless on paper, but still did very well for himself here in the US. Plenty of people come to the US without displaying immediate worth and do more good for America than a lot of American born citizens. The point being that you have no idea what value they bring. There are people with PhDs being pushed out. The refugees all lived pretty similar lives to ours before their homes were destroyed. Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google) was a refugee from Russia who came here at age 6. Imagine if we turned his family away because we were paranoid about them being Russian spies. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Bud's Message to International Students
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top