My Thoughts On The Immigration Ban

First... I was uniformed...

when i first heard about this, i was too busy to give it any attention.  let's face it, it seems like protesting has become a daily event the last few years, and it's not like Trump hasn't been as controversial as police shootings and bathroom use, so... yeah... i didn't care.

i (wrongly) assumed this was some minor policy change that would slowly take place and in 2 months when anything actually had an impact we would be focused on the next great social travesty we are going to protest.

so first, let me say this:

Donald Trump, i want to have the Tom Hanks view on you... i want you to do such a great job that i vote for you in four years.  but this, was a dick move.

if you want to expand the process, and you want to create a policy of 'extreme vetting', that is your call, you are 'commander in chief'.

but to create a policy that instantly goes into effect while people are mid-flight into the country, is at best a dick move.

having said that...

your policy wouldn't have had half the resistance it's getting if you had set some kind of schedule that slowly took place over the next month.  your policy should have taken into consideration the handful of people who were already vetted on the old policy, and your policy should have been ready to work with those who were already holding green cards, established in country, and might just be overseas visiting family.  while i appreciate the aggressive nature of your desire to protect our nation, as a leader you need to consider what is already in place, the people, the laws, the families, and the processes.

we are a nation of immigrants.

but, this is not the world that existed even decades ago.

if people can argue that automatic weapons weren't what the founding fathers considered 'arms', then it could be argued that an open door policy doesn't fit the world we live in today.

when i wondered why all the angry lefties who claimed they were going to leave the country for Canada or Mexico didn't actually leave, some very plainly replied that most other countries actually have very difficult immigration policies, we just don't enforce ours like they do theirs.

so i get it, we don't follow our own rules, and many people think this is a problem.

if we are going to have rules, we should enforce them - period.

but you can't suddenly change the rules, especially if we haven't been following them.

now the NBA is worried that multi-million dollar basketball players may fly to Toronto for a game and not be able to get back in the country.  what??

this was not well thought out.

and i get it, 9/11 was 15 years ago, we are still at war in many ways, and our last president was deadlier than most want to admit with the drone strikes (making us as many new enemies as friends).

in a world where women get offended if a guy tries to talk to them... 'like some kinda psycho'.  sure, it wouldn't surprise me if people are paranoid of radical Islam.

but there are better ways to handle this.

you want 'extreme vetting', that's your call... you're the president, you can decide what the vetting policies are.

maybe you should consider this from a more simple view.  you can't just throw a car into reverse while it's just been coasting downhill.  apply the brakes, put your foot on the clutch, ease the clutch out a little...  c'mon man... you're not making any friends by making drastic sudden changes.

sure, there are reasons for fear.  and frankly, there's part of me that wonders why all the tens of thousands of refugees didn't unite and rise up against their oppression.  why aren't they protesting like we are here?  why aren't they armed in a way that keeps their government from oppressing them like we are here?  and if they can't get it together, do we want them here?  is it worth the risk that a dozen may slip in and cause another 9/11?  i totally get it!

but, at the same time, you have ways to vet these people... and as i understand it some of them have actually already served in wars with some of our own military - - what??  that's pre-vetted!  those people shouldn't be waiting at airports to have someone tell you they're ok, they already worked their asses off for us!  you need a reference - ask our own military!

you want to make some changes, fine... you want to make them extreme... i get it... here's a compromise - right now, thousands of people are protesting - you get them to volunteer to take in refugees into their own homes AND be liable for the actions of those refugees until they have their green cards.  boom - if someone blows up a train station, you get to send their sponsors to prison too.  if these people are so worthy of being here, this shouldn't be a problem for either side.

a compromise, and a fairly extreme one.  but if Jane Doe in Boston is willing to take someone in to her home and share a bathroom and face whatever prison sentence that could come from having the person they sponsor blow up in an airport, then you will see how serious they are.  if John Smith in LA is willing to take in a family with his and face jail time if that person suddenly disappears before they've been vetted, then you have someone to hold accountable, publicly.

but, like the rest of our policies - ENFORCE IT.

we have rules, and we haven't been enforcing them.  we've just been coasting along staring our the window, ignoring the issue... and you just through things into reverse.

this is not the right way to handle things.

back your policy up, and write one that considers everyone involved.

you can still have your extreme vetting, that is your right.  and you can make it so extreme that everyone protesting can put their own home AND their future on the line for what they believe in.  but you can't just turn off a practice which has been in place for years.

dick move.  back up, and do it right.  or don't do it at all.