Jam wrote:What do rights have to do with it, and Trump's comments don't reflect actual US immigration policy or the will of US citizens.
I think the idea here is that this guy got voted as president so he has the right to implement or propose whatever immigration policies he sees fit. When did past policy forbid any future adjustments? And, again, if he got voted by a majority of US states, he represents the will of US citizens. And yeah, I know that he didn't win the popular vote, I already commented on this during the election, I think it's a retarded electoral system.
Countries have a right to implement whatever immigration policy they want, and people have a right to criticize that policy. Saying you have a right to do it in response to criticism is the lowest form of defence.
Yeah, but it's all part of the political process. People have the right to criticise, but they already voted a president and that president now wants to implement some policies. Hate them or not, it's all a product of due political process. There's nothing really dysfunctional here. It's just that some people, probably mostly people who did not vote Trump, disagree with his policies. I don't see the problem here. And yeah, it is the lowest form of defence, but these are extraordinary times, when the most basic institutions are put to test, doubted, contested. People tend to disagree to the bone now, not just on some superficial issues. And even if it's the lowest form of defence, that doesn't make it invalid.
Reasonable people don't expect the USA to accept anyone and everyone who applies for immigration, just that the process is fair and rational. Saying that immigrants shouldn't be accepted from Africa because it's a "shithole" is neither, and is not just an insult to the many Africans who are good people, but to US citizens who immigrated from Africa and their children.
Well, the USA is free to set its criteria for acceptance of immigrants, just like any other country. And those criteria can be quite arbitrary sometimes. I know this, as someone who lives in Romania, and although we are a NATO ally, we still cannot travel without a visa to the US. Why? Because the USA has some criteria for accepting visa-free travel. At this moment they consider that the rate of rejection of applicants is too high to justify lifting the ban. But then again, that rate of rejection is high because US consulates and embassies keep that rejection rate high... So, in other words, probably the USA considers Romania too much of a shithole to allow visa-free travel from this country. Does that offend me? Shit, no. What do I care, it's their country, they can decide whomever they want to cross their borders and travel or stay there.