Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
Vet is perhaps too strong of a word. Japan is one of many nations with Reciprocal Visa Exemption Arrangements. For visitors not from a nation on that list, scrutiny is much more intense.
Valid point about unnecessary fear of foreigners. For many supporters of increased immigration/entry controls, it is not such fear. Rather it is opposition to the liberal view that 1) America is obligated to open its borders and 2) current laws on immigration can be ignored.
Posts: 10,328
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
MarkD wrote:
"Valid point about unnecessary fear of foreigners. For many supporters of increased immigration/entry controls, it is not such fear. Rather it is opposition to the liberal view that 1) America is obligated to open its borders and 2) current laws on immigration can be ignored."
I can't make head nor tail of this paragraph. For instance, I'm not convinced supporters of increased immigration are also supporters of increased entry controls.
In any case, I'm also not convinced this has anything with Sessions' comments about Hawaii and its judge. It seems to be drifting into mainland politics.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
It's quite simple. If you have doubts about discriminating based on religion, which is illegal, then it must mean that you want to throw open the borders and you also think it is everyone's right to live in the US. I'm sure there's a word for such a poor debating technique.
Mr Sessions sure put Hawaii back on the map, even saw Schatz being interviewed on CNN.
Posts: 14,135
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
It's actually even simpler than suggested above.
People of certain nations hate us because we interfere with their sovereign rule, often with bombs and military occupation, then pretend it's all fine and nothing to worry about.
Later we act all surprised that they would want to retaliate.
Don't pretend it's about "religion", either. All religions have been used to justify hatred and genocide of the non-believers.
Posts: 1,080
Threads: 51
Joined: Jan 2014
Exactly. They don't "hate us for our freedom" like the government wants us to believe. They hate us for what we've done to them.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
Reply to PaulW
Poor debating point? Well it is not my viewpoint. It is a contrived argument that you made up.
The assertion that we are discriminating against Muslims with the 6 nations ban is specious. We did not ban Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates or many other Muslim-majority nations.
And it was the Obama administration in 2015 that first identified those 7 countries (now 6 since Iraq has been taken off) for increased scrutiny for their citizens traveling into the U.S.
The arguments against the ban have some merit. It is a fair legal question. But the position that the ban was devised for the primary intent of religious discrimination (and racism) is hyperbole.
Re Kalakoa’s views
I am not clear on the point of your first sentence. Your reference about our interfering with other nations' sovereignty and then receiving the consequences is correct. There does seem to be an additional perspective (mostly with ISIS) of pious religious people disliking decadent Western civilization and engaging in conflict with us (mostly Europe) on that account.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
He said it himself, you can even find a video of him saying it: "... is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
This is exactly why the Hawaii judge challenged it. Once this ban got implemented then who could challenge expanding it until it includes all countries with a certain religion? It's illegal and unconstitutional.
Being against something illegal and unconstitutional does not make someone a proponent of throwing open the borders. You can't just say "if A then B" there has to be some logic connecting the two.
Well done to the Hawaii judge. I'm sure many others considered doing it but didn't want to be the ones getting the grief.
This very good for Hawaii's reputation as a diverse and welcoming place.
PS You're new here so please remember that we have to keep this within an Hawaiian framework on this forum. Nobody cares about your (or my) views on national or international politics.
Posts: 14,135
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Once this ban got implemented then who could challenge expanding it until it includes all countries with a certain religion? It's illegal and unconstitutional.
How ironic that this comes from Hawaii, where people of "a certain religion" get a free pass.
Posts: 1,100
Threads: 6
Joined: Nov 2010
I assume you're referring to Hare Krishna/"Science of Identity"?
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
Reply to PaulW
I understand that Trump’s statement about Muslims was a major basis for the ruling. So does this mean, hypothetically, that if such a ruling had come from a different President who had never expressed such bias, that the ban would not have been challenged? And how much weight should judges give to what they believe are the motivations behind the ban, as opposed to what the ban actually does?
You write Once this ban got implemented then who could challenge expanding it.... I acknowledge these slippery slope concerns. But there were articulable reasons for choosing the 7 nations (among them the Obama administration’s concerns in 2015). If Trump wins on this ban and then subsequently attempts to add other Muslims nations, it seems that such additions would be challengeable (concerns of precedence notwithstanding).
Obviously most opponents of the ban do not support uncontrolled borders. I exaggerated to generate discussion. (If people find my writing unpalatable, I can obviously be ignored.) Still I believe the commentary raises fair points. The national dialog on immigration involves a large, vocal group of open border people, and the Hawaii travel ban has put our judge under focus.
Finally you assert the ban is illegal and unconstitutional. Apparently the case might to go the Supreme Court. It seems premature to declare the ban is clearly illegal.
General comment I am honestly curious how people with part (or full) Hawaiian ancestry (hereafter native Hawaiians) view immigration. We now have 7 million-plus tourists a year on our small land base. Mainlanders regularly move here, adding to congestion.
Rents are rising rapidly across our state. Native Hawaiians, disproportionately on Hawaii’s lower income rungs, are having increasing financial worries, sometimes homelessness. Does the additional influx of foreign immigrants (regardless of color, creed or race) benefit native Hawaiians? It is a fair question.
