6 out of 7 countries on the ban list are active war zones. Which means they have unstable governments, poor infrastructure, and consequently poor documentation of their citizens, undermining any vetting process that might be employed during their immigration to the US.

So it's about limiting immigration from areas of conflict? So where are these countries on the ban I ask:

Turkey
Saudi Arabia
Kenya
Nigeria
Cameroon
Niger
Chad
Egypt
Ethiopia
India
Pakistan
Myanmar
Thailand
Israel
Palestine
Colombia
Phillipines
Angola
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Algeria
Tunisia
Burundi
Russia
Central African Republic
Mali
Mozambique
Ukraine

-All countries with ongoing significant armed conflict. Doesn't seem to be the reason for ban now, does it?

It has nothing to do with "Muslims". Out of the 10 countries with the highest Muslim populations in the world, only one is on this list.

Pull the other one matey. The whole point of the ban in the first place is to limit muslim immigration (as Trump himself has stated), hence why only majority muslim nations have been targeted as opposed to only areas of conflict. Trump has also said he'll prioritise Christian refugees- but no, this ban still obviously has nothing to do with religion!
The mental gymnastics involved defending this are getting kind of tiresome now.

Reply 24

LisaNikita

2

Original post by NotNotBatman

Source?

Because you cant check facts for yourself lmao

Reply 25

NotNotBatman

20

Original post by joe cooley

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/12/obama-ends-cuba-immigration-policy-wet-foot-dry-foot

One of his last actions as President, lots of Cuban Americans are Republicans.

Original post by LisaNikita

2011

I know this, but that's not a ban; that's a removal of special privileges. I'm interested to hear what happened in 2011, because I am unaware of any ban on Cubans.

Reply 26

LisaNikita

2

Original post by NotNotBatman

I know this, but that's not a ban; that's a removal of special privileges. I'm interested to hear what happened in 2011, because I am unaware of any ban on Cubans.

then search and educate yourself ffs

Reply 27

StrawbAri

17

Original post by joe cooley

Please clarify.

Your moral standard is on a sliding scale?

Not much of a "standard" then is it.

Western culture is meant to be superior to Islamic culture. According to many right wingers on here as well.
So why are we comparing a country such as America to a country where people are still thrown off buildings because of their sexuality or still being stoned for adultery?
Because morally bankrupt Saudi Arabia is doing it does that mean America should also do it?
Also the idea that no one criticises these things is flawed. How do you know these things weren't criticised at the time? It stems from the habit of lumping everyone that errs even slightly to the left of your set of your personal opinion as 'liberals' and not realising the majority of individuals aren't caught up in the left vs right competition you see on the internet all the time.

Reply 28

NotNotBatman

20

Original post by LisaNikita

then search and educate yourself ffs

Yeah, I know how to use google search and I couldn't find any sources; that's why I'm asking you. You made "positive" statement, surely it'd be easy for you to find a source; I've asked as it'd be easier than searching for one, as I've already been unable to find one and I'm not prepared to put that much effort into it.

Reply 29

joe cooley

1

Original post by StrawbAri

Western culture is meant to be superior to Islamic culture. According to many right wingers on here as well.
So why are we comparing a country such as America to a country where people are still thrown off buildings because of their sexuality or still being stoned for adultery?
Because morally bankrupt Saudi Arabia is doing it does that mean America should also do it?
Also the idea that no one criticises these things is flawed. How do you know these things weren't criticised at the time? It stems from the habit of lumping everyone that errs even slightly to the left of your set of your personal opinion as 'liberals' and not realising the majority of individuals aren't caught up in the left vs right competition you see on the internet all the time.

Western culture IS superior to Islamic culture.

Holding them to the same standards as ourselves is a way of encouraging them to catch up.

Not being a bigot, I believe they are more than capable of achieving the same moral standards.

Do you?

How do i know these things weren't criticised at the time?

You on the left have history when it comes to double standards.

Reply 30

VV Cephei A

OP

6

Original post by mingusdingus

So it's about limiting immigration from areas of conflict? So where are these countries on the ban I ask:

Turkey
Saudi Arabia
Kenya
Nigeria
Cameroon
Niger
Chad
Egypt
Ethiopia
India
Pakistan
Myanmar
Thailand
Israel
Palestine
Colombia
Phillipines
Angola
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Algeria
Tunisia
Burundi
Russia
Central African Republic
Mali
Mozambique
Ukraine

-All countries with ongoing significant armed conflict. Doesn't seem to be the reason for ban now, does it?

te
Pull the other one matey. The whole point of the ban in the first place is to limit muslim immigration (as Trump himself has stated), hence why only majority muslim nations have been targeted as opposed to only areas of conflict. Trump has also said he'll prioritise Christian refugees- but no, this ban still obviously has nothing to do with religion!
The mental gymnastics involved defending this are getting kind of tiresome now.

The order is about limiting immigration from countries with a high prevalence of Islamic extremism and extremist violence, until appropriate measures have been established to vet immigrants.

If it was an outright "Muslim ban", he would
1) Be banning all immigration from Muslim majority countries. Why are the 200+ million Muslims in Indonesia for example not affected?
2) The ban would be permanent, and not a temporary measure.

The only mental gymnastics being performed here are from people like you who label this a "Muslim ban" when, objectively, that is not what it is.

Reply 31

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by VV Cephei A

Admittedly, since the order was rushed out so quickly, mistakes are being made in its implementation. These should hopefully be rectified in the coming weeks.

The thread is more aimed at those who have a problem with the concept as a whole.

You mean Trump is a pathetic grandstanding fool who has only the vaguest idea of how to execute government policy and is more concerned about pandering to his base than any actual effects.

As are the maniacs and morons who surround him in his new 'government'.

Given that this is how he deals with marginal issues, we can only shudder to think what it will be like on the big things - China, climate change, Russia, global economy, etc.

Reply 32

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by mingusdingus

So it's about limiting immigration from areas of conflict? So where are these countries on the ban I ask:

Turkey
Saudi Arabia
Kenya
Nigeria
Cameroon
Niger
Chad
Egypt
Ethiopia
India
Pakistan
Myanmar
Thailand
Israel
Palestine
Colombia
Phillipines
Angola
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Algeria
Tunisia
Burundi
Russia
Central African Republic
Mali
Mozambique
Ukraine

-All countries with ongoing significant armed conflict. Doesn't seem to be the reason for ban now, does it?

Pull the other one matey. The whole point of the ban in the first place is to limit muslim immigration (as Trump himself has stated), hence why only majority muslim nations have been targeted as opposed to only areas of conflict. Trump has also said he'll prioritise Christian refugees- but no, this ban still obviously has nothing to do with religion!
The mental gymnastics involved defending this are getting kind of tiresome now.

Which significant armed conflict is ongoing in Israel?

Reply 33

Jammy Duel

21

Obama also froze refugee intake from Iraq for 6 months in 2011

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

Reply 34

StrawbAri

17

Original post by joe cooley

Western culture IS superior to Islamic culture.

Holding them to the same standards as ourselves is a way of encouraging them to catch up.

Not being a bigot, I believe they are more than capable of achieving the same moral standards.

Do you?

How do i know these things weren't criticised at the time?

You on the left have history when it comes to double standards.

How do you know I'm on the left?
Which is what I'm saying. People have a tendency of lumping others with differing opinions to them into monolithic groups without realising that maybe some people might not give a **** about left wing/right wing politics. And when that's happening how do you expect us to have a proper discussion when you've already made up your mind that I'm a 'liberal' with a certain set of opinions?

Reply 35

midnightice

13

Why on earth does it apply to people with dual nationality like Mo Farah? It's a ludicrous policy.

Reply 36

mingusdingus

Original post by VV Cephei A

The order is about limiting immigration from countries with a high prevalence of Islamic extremism and extremist violence, until appropriate measures have been established to vet immigrants.

If it was an outright "Muslim ban", he would
1) Be banning all immigration from Muslim majority countries. Why are the 200+ million Muslims in Indonesia for example not affected?
2) The ban would be permanent, and not a temporary measure.

The only mental gymnastics being performed here are from people like you who label this a "Muslim ban" when, objectively, that is not what it is.

Why does only Islamic violence matter? Seems like targeting muslims to me

1) A guest speaker on the BBC said that the reason only these countries were included in the ban was because they were systems started by Obama - thus easier to enforce. Other other countries will likely be added in the near future.

2) A ban is a ban regardless of permanency

It's not a complete ban on muslims, very few people have suggested that, but it is undoubtedly a ban that targets muslims.