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: 292245" data-attributes="member: 568"><p>[USER=735]@Whiskey_Clear[/USER]</p><p>That's fair for you to take the assessment of the government over my own. They're much, much more intimate to the situation than I am and, frankly, it's not my academic field. I'm just an amateur with an opinion. I assure you I have no allegiance to either party, but I do question the current administration's motives. The ban itself causes more harm than good, in my opinion. I would be more comfortable with it if it included additions that people who are currently deemed non-threats by our government (current students, current employees, long-established families, etc.) have the opportunity to still come and go as they please. Additionally, while the executive branch absolutely has control over this situation, we still have checks and balances to make sure than no one branch makes decisions that overstep their bounds. If I understand correctly, the 9th Circuit rejected it for the same reasons I have stated: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html" target="_blank">the fear of a potential attack</a> is unreviewable without proof (i.e. no history of ill will toward Americans). It should go by without problem once the administration releases proof of potential for attacks (which is why Obama's ban passed), but that might force them to divulge information they don't want to release.</p><p></p><p>You will have to allow me to be skeptical of the interactions your buddies have had though. I am assuming they were military affiliated? If so, they were over there with the express purpose of being involved in a war zone. The type of people you interact with in that area are going to most definitely be ones with ill intent towards Americans. Same as you have the right to excuse my friends' anecdotes because they interact with people who have fully adopted America as the new country to raise their children. They're really two completely different sets of people.</p><p></p><p>I will state that I do fear for an attack that might causes the death of a 100+ people. It's always a possibility (even if just a small one). But we cannot let ourselves be governed by fear. Similar to your hypothetical, what if we admitted another 280,000 refugees over the next ten years and not only was there not an attack, but the people who came in were given access to education and resources that allowed them to develop into fine people who serve the public? Doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. Neither one of us can predict the future, but the reason for my risk analysis is to show why I believe my hypothetical is much more likely.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I think this is a good stopping point and I am fine with letting others continue on the discussion (or letting the thread die). Thanks for the discussion, Whiskey. It's always good to view issues from multiple perspectives, helps you get a full picture. I'll finish by saying I completely understand your side of the argument and I am not saying it is wrong. All I ask for anyone is to not view this as an "us against them" scenario. There is a lot of gray area, just like in most controversial topics. There are genuinely wonderful people from those seven countries and there are some that are horrible. Just the same as there are wonderful Americans and horrible Americans. We're all just people. If you want to get in any final remarks, then feel free.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cam, post: 292245, member: 568"] [USER=735]@Whiskey_Clear[/USER] That's fair for you to take the assessment of the government over my own. They're much, much more intimate to the situation than I am and, frankly, it's not my academic field. I'm just an amateur with an opinion. I assure you I have no allegiance to either party, but I do question the current administration's motives. The ban itself causes more harm than good, in my opinion. I would be more comfortable with it if it included additions that people who are currently deemed non-threats by our government (current students, current employees, long-established families, etc.) have the opportunity to still come and go as they please. Additionally, while the executive branch absolutely has control over this situation, we still have checks and balances to make sure than no one branch makes decisions that overstep their bounds. If I understand correctly, the 9th Circuit rejected it for the same reasons I have stated: [URL='https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html']the fear of a potential attack[/URL] is unreviewable without proof (i.e. no history of ill will toward Americans). It should go by without problem once the administration releases proof of potential for attacks (which is why Obama's ban passed), but that might force them to divulge information they don't want to release. You will have to allow me to be skeptical of the interactions your buddies have had though. I am assuming they were military affiliated? If so, they were over there with the express purpose of being involved in a war zone. The type of people you interact with in that area are going to most definitely be ones with ill intent towards Americans. Same as you have the right to excuse my friends' anecdotes because they interact with people who have fully adopted America as the new country to raise their children. They're really two completely different sets of people. I will state that I do fear for an attack that might causes the death of a 100+ people. It's always a possibility (even if just a small one). But we cannot let ourselves be governed by fear. Similar to your hypothetical, what if we admitted another 280,000 refugees over the next ten years and not only was there not an attack, but the people who came in were given access to education and resources that allowed them to develop into fine people who serve the public? Doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. Neither one of us can predict the future, but the reason for my risk analysis is to show why I believe my hypothetical is much more likely. Anyway, I think this is a good stopping point and I am fine with letting others continue on the discussion (or letting the thread die). Thanks for the discussion, Whiskey. It's always good to view issues from multiple perspectives, helps you get a full picture. I'll finish by saying I completely understand your side of the argument and I am not saying it is wrong. All I ask for anyone is to not view this as an "us against them" scenario. There is a lot of gray area, just like in most controversial topics. There are genuinely wonderful people from those seven countries and there are some that are horrible. Just the same as there are wonderful Americans and horrible Americans. We're all just people. If you want to get in any final remarks, then feel free. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
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