The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Iranian PHD student banned from US despite having a house, job, dog and car

Appalling. How can you possibly defend Trump's ridiculous executive order when innocent people are being barred.

http://thetab.com/us/clemson/2017/01/28/nazanin-zinouri-1560?utm_source=studentxpost&utm_medium=national&utm_campaign=xpost

Scroll to see replies

This is the one major thing so far that I have not agreed with Trump.

It's bloody awful, what is their line of thinking when they ban a US citizen, with no links to terrorism whatsoever apart from his nationality? Do they think they get radicalized when they go out of the US, so can't risk them coming back in?

It's stupid.
It's impossible to just ban the bad guys because you never know who's going to be the next terrorism. It had to be a blanket ban
Fortunately the ban will lift within 90 days.

I hope there wont be any problems when I spend summer in Seattle :s-smilie:
Reply 4
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
Original post by Stoke123
Fortunately the ban will lift within 90 days.

I hope there wont be any problems when I spend summer in Seattle :s-smilie:


If the EO is allowed* to stand it is also likely to be renewed after 90 days.

*Which is currently being challenged and aspects have already been "withdrawn" such as Green Card holders now facing less stringent exclusions.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I doubt the people who stoned transgender women, attacked gay people, and sexually assaulted women and children were involved in terrorism, they were just living their culture. As they had no terrorist links, they would probably be allowed in. A blanket ban is better
Original post by Stoke123
Fortunately the ban will lift within 90 days.


No, this is just the beginning of Trump's plan. He's aiming for a total and permanent ban of all Muslims. Obviously he had to start small with this.

...And I agree. There's too many of them - let them stay in their own part of the world.
(edited 7 years ago)
Well of course a few innocents will be caught in the crossfire, but there simply isn't enough time to deal with everyone individually. It's much more efficient just to ban everyone that fits the profile, with no exceptions.
Noooooooo, not the dog!!!
Reply 9
Avatar for Fenneko
Fenneko
20
Original post by Google22
This is the one major thing so far that I have not agreed with Trump.

It's bloody awful, what is their line of thinking when they ban a US citizen, with no links to terrorism whatsoever apart from his nationality? Do they think they get radicalized when they go out of the US, so can't risk them coming back in?

It's stupid.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but she wasn't a citizen, was she?
It is troubling how almost every single case of denials of entry and potential deportations in America which have been presented to me over the past few days in the news have centred around academics at universities, almost as if to justify to us that not all immigrants in the US are inextrodinary, uneducated lowlives. How about those 'normal' people who are being turned back at airports, do they not matter to those who are targeted by such reports, because they're not an academic or are related to one, and therefore fit in with the invented standards of social acceptability so many obviously have?
Original post by jambojim97
Appalling. How can you possibly defend Trump's ridiculous executive order when innocent people are being barred.

http://thetab.com/us/clemson/2017/01/28/nazanin-zinouri-1560?utm_source=studentxpost&utm_medium=national&utm_campaign=xpost


Wait, she had a dog?

Trump is the Devil incarnate!

FFS.
Original post by Joel 96
Correct me if I'm wrong, but she wasn't a citizen, was she?


No, but do you not think the US should at least appreciate the human rights of non-citizen residents who have a life in The States?
Original post by jambojim97
No, but do you not think the US should at least appreciate the human rights of non-citizen residents who have a life in The States?


Not particularly. She's 29 years old; she had 7 years to apply for citizenship. If she really valued the aspects of going in and out of a country and, ultimately, wanted to live there, then she should have applied.

Obviously, non-citizens have rights, but we're talking about countries with links to terrorism and radicalism. You can argue that it's unfair, but it's precaution. You can't treat people as individuals on this.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 14
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
Original post by Joel 96
Not particularly. She's 29 years old; she had 7 years to apply for citizenship. If she really valued the aspects of going in and out of a country and, ultimately, wanted to live there, then she should have applied.

Obviously, non-citizens have rights, but we're talking about countries with links to terrorism and radicalism. You can argue that it's unfair, but it's precaution. You can't treat people as individuals on this.


"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me —
and there was no one left to speak for me."

Martin Niemöller
Reply 15
Avatar for Wōden
Wōden
15
Original post by Stoke123
Fortunately the ban will lift within 90 days.

I hope there wont be any problems when I spend summer in Seattle :s-smilie:


Why would there be? Are you a citizen of any of the affected countries?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by jneill
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me —
and there was no one left to speak for me."

Martin Niemöller


Is that an argument?
ideally we will get towards banning all muslims

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Joel 96
Not particularly. She's 29 years old; she had 7 years to apply for citizenship. If she really valued the aspects of going in and out of a country and, ultimately, wanted to live there, then she should have applied.

Obviously, non-citizens have rights, but we're talking about countries with links to terrorism and radicalism. You can argue that it's unfair, but it's precaution. You can't treat people as individuals on this.


No, that's incorrect. During her studies, she was on a student visa - a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of study. Since completing her doctorate, she has been in the US on a temporary worker visa. Both of these are nonimmigrant visas meaning she has no avenue to apply for citizenship.

Therefore my point still stands that she has been treated unfairly and inhumanely.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Stoke123
Fortunately the ban will lift within 90 days.

I hope there wont be any problems when I spend summer in Seattle :s-smilie:


Plenty of people will have lost their jobs in 90 days.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you