How Effective is Trump's "Muslim Ban"?

If someone is a citizen they're not a traveler...he's blockading, or attempting, Muslim migrants, with or without visas/cards. Not tourists.

yes I am triggered, and what?

According to the 2011 census approx 9,000, but accurate figures are hard to come by, and many give estimates in the 20-45,000 region. Still the highest population in the region outside of Israel, regardless (and the least anti-Semitic society in the region, with an Iranian Jewish MP and an Iranian Chief Rabbi).

This stream of consciousness would not be out of place at a Trump press conference.

This ban does not discriminate on grounds of religion within the 7 countries concerned, so an Iranian Jew studying in a university in the US with a valid visa (having gone through all the procedural requirements and vetting to get this), who left the country for a week to visit a family member in hospital, would not be permitted to re-enter the country to resume his studies.

In contrast, a Saudi/Indonesian Muslim has no problem - as these countries are not included in the ban.


You are not a pretty sight.

But over 60 million people also support it.

During last 40 years the Jewish population in Iran decreased tenfold - this is important.

I'm not too sure about this, perhaps they support some sort of "Muslim ban", so anything that bans some Muslims is something these people would probably support - even notwithstanding the fact that from a terrorism POV the wrong countries have been banned (nobody has been killed in a terrorist attacked by nationals of the 7 countries banned, whereas 15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens). The real concern is homegrown terrorism, and this is not going to help prevent this, if anything, it will serve as ammunition for radical preachers and ISIS etc.

But as we know, Trump supporters don't particularly care about facts or reality.

As a side note, it's not in your best interests to mention raw numbers - as you should know over 3 million more people voted for Hillary than Trump, so a clear majority of voters would presumably not support this policy.


Sorry, what? So in Trump's "Muslim ban" you are telling me his aim is not to actually ban Muslims? What is his aim, then? Please enlighten us.

It doesn't matter how many people support Hillary. The point is, several millions still support Trump. And who cares about the popular vote at the end of the day.

To be honest if he blockaded India and Pakistan there'd probably be a war or something, he's not a complete fool.

Why would he ever want to blockade India? (India is Hindu majority 80% and Hindus had donated millions to his campaign)

Why would he ever want to blockade India? (India is Hindu majority 80% and Hindus had donated millions to his campaign)
And why would there be a war? Who would be involved?

"Not visa ban but extreme vetting for Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia"
http://www.firstpost.com/world/not-visa-ban-extreme-vetting-for-pakistan-afghanistan-saudi-arabia-president-trump-3223890.html
Not getting a visa ban but still..
Posted from TSR Mobile

Can any of the snowflake currently so triggered by Trumps outrage please direct me to the thread expressing the same outrage regarding Muslim countries banning travel from Israel?

I doubt it very much.

Perhaps because India has the second largest population of Muslims of any country in the world (almost 200 million Muslims - more than all the countries in the ban put together), and this is supposedly a ban on Muslims.

Too incoherent for me, I'm afraid.


It is Trump himself who announced his policy as a "complete shutdown on Muslims entering the U.S.".


At least we have some clarity. In that case, why does the ban apply to 7 countries which have never produced a terrorist that killed US citizens? Why hasn't he included the 4 countries whose citizens comprised the 9/11 hijackers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) - the biggest terrorist attack in US history, yet none of these Muslim countries are included in his "Muslim ban" designed to prevent terrorism.

Lastly, the real threat of terrorism is in the homegrown context - banning Iraqis with a green card or Syrians with a legal visa is not going to help prevent this. Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosques are a major driver of radicalisation of homegrown terrorists, so if his aim if to prevent terrorism then that is where he should start.

Yesterday, Trump affirmed a ban on entry of individuals from 7 "detrimental" countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. This ban seems incredibly disproportionate and misguided.

Firstly, this doesn't really seem to be a "Muslim ban" - it doesn't include the country with the largest population of Muslims (India), nor the largest Muslim-majority country (Indonesia), nor Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Secondly, there have been very few terrorist attacks in the U.S. by Muslim refugees. Even fewer from the countries actually affected by this ban. When we look at the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers we see that 15/19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, none of the 9/11 hijackers were from the 7 countries subject to this ban. There are more Americans in ISIS than Iranians in ISIS.

Thirdly, the threat of terrorism is clearly most likely to arise in the domestic context - that is to say, home grown terrorists. This ban does nothing to address this issue, other than further marginalise American Muslims and provide further fuel to ISIS/radical elements. Curiously, if we want to address the problem of home grown terrorism, dealing with Saudi Arabia's funding of Wahabbism across the globe might be a good place to start. Many intelligence agencies have recognised the problem of Saudi-funded radicalisation across the West, with both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump acknowledging this problem (quote below) - yet, for some reason, what Trump called "the world's biggest funders of terrorism" (Saudi Arabia) did not manage to make it onto his "Muslim Ban", ostensibly designed to protect Americans from terrorism.



https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/w...slam.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-you...b_6501916.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6763366.html

Lastly, I think it is worth noting the pure insanity of the ban. This ban applies to green card holders who are legal residents of the U.S., that, upon returning from leaving the country (for holidays, etc), may find that they cannot reenter their home country.

Perhaps some of us believe that, as the leader of the free world, the U.S. should not hold itself to the standards of Saudi Arabia (who ban Israelis, have a Jewish population of 0, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi - and Saudi are not in the ban).

In that case, why does the ban apply to 7 countries which have never produced a terrorist that killed US citizens? Why hasn't he included the 4 countries whose citizens comprised the 9/11 hijackers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) - the biggest terrorist attack in US history, yet none of these Muslim countries are included in his "Muslim ban" designed to prevent terrorism.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. All over this thread, and others, people are scratching their heads why he didn't ban Indonesia, India, etc. And I said because he's not a fool is he? So we don't disagree with him not banning India, perhaps for different reasons but whatever. And yes there would be a war or a civil revolt, call to be impeached, etc. He could anger some extremists if not terrorists from India and Pakistan if he did ban them, or make his political life hell at the very least; Pakistanis and Indians have far more first world representation than some of the countries he's banned and it's not economic to anger or ban certain Muslim countries.