tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post8352376983522109705..comments2024-03-28T21:41:32.110-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: More on ImmigrationGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-24274751070587696832017-01-30T16:50:27.520-05:002017-01-30T16:50:27.520-05:00Couple things. Blanket bans on Muslims is a bit f...Couple things. Blanket bans on Muslims is a bit far. I've worked with quite a number of Muslims; nowhere near all of them are jihadists, none of the ones with whom I worked even were Sharia adherents. All had assimilated quite nicely. If we had religious...discussions...they were about as vociferous as any ordinary Protestant-Catholic, or Baptist-anybody, or anybody-Papist <i>tete-a-tetes</i>. Based on my sample size, we can handle--assimilate--a fair number of them.<br /><br />Second, I disagree that Trump's EO violates INA-65, and it doesn't even need the 2015 Act to have that status. INA-65 bars the use of national origin, race, and ancestry as basis <i>for immigration</i>. The EO doesn't even approach that. It bars entry for a short period of time, and nothing more. Even the restriction on entry from Syria is temporary, if more open-ended.<br /><br />Eric Hines<br />E Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38460325172052354052017-01-30T13:10:10.171-05:002017-01-30T13:10:10.171-05:00Well, we could just repeal the 1965 law, or we cou...Well, we could just repeal the 1965 law, or we could bar ALL immigration for, say, 60 years or so. Either one works for me, though ideally we'd accept immigrants who'd assimilate well and add to our overall wealth and quality of life (ie, not Muslims).jabrwokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14537636497352864636noreply@blogger.com