Iranian PHD student banned from US despite having a house, job, dog and car
Scroll to see replies
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?
Like it or not the USA has an absolute right to allow who it wants into its own territory. The world is not an open space and nor should it be
It's about time we tightened our rules now too
Original post by Sammylou40
Like it or not the USA has an absolute right to allow who it wants into its own territory. The world is not an open space and nor should it be
It's about time we tightened our rules now too
It's about time we tightened our rules now too
Yes they absolutely do. But at the same time, we have a right to criticise their policies and hold Donald Trump to account over his draconianism
Original post by jambojim97
Yes they absolutely do. But at the same time, we have a right to criticise their policies and hold Donald Trump to account over his draconianism
Criticise away!!! It's not your country, you have no say. They voted for it. Democracy in action
At least he's delivered what he promised!!!
Original post by Sammylou40
Criticise away!!! It's not your country, you have no say. They voted for it. Democracy in action
At least he's delivered what he promised!!!
At least he's delivered what he promised!!!
I don't care whether it's "my" country or not. The sad truth is that Trump's presidency represents the fatalities of populism and fear-mongering and as a consequence this is spreading throughout the western world.
I think you are all missing the most important thing in the case.
The dog.
What will the dog do now the evil Trump has banned his mummy!!!!!!
Cant we hold a march, start a petition....anything?
Trump hates dogs.......impeach him now!!!!!!
The dog.
What will the dog do now the evil Trump has banned his mummy!!!!!!
Cant we hold a march, start a petition....anything?
Trump hates dogs.......impeach him now!!!!!!
Original post by jambojim97
I am indeed! And I'm not ashamed to admit it!
Well, that's something.
Original post by jambojim97
Bit ad hominem...
Bit ad hominem...
Yes, a little.
Original post by jambojim97
Hardly. I think it's a perfectly apt comparison when there's a moral panic about Muslims when monumentally more people every year get shot on US soil by US citizens.
Hardly. I think it's a perfectly apt comparison when there's a moral panic about Muslims when monumentally more people every year get shot on US soil by US citizens.
No, because then you'll get into all sorts of realizations...
"Road accidents are more common than terrorists!"
"Food poisoning is more common than terrorists!"
"Gun murders by US citizens are more common than terrorists!"
So, the likelihood of something happening dictates the gravity of its effect? I don't think so.
The second amendment is absolutely crucial to maintaining the people's freedom in America. Kinda hard to equate that to letting Muslim immigrants in, and finding out that a small portion of them, who could have been avoided, turn out to be radical. If you can avoid unnecessary circumstances, then avoid them. Guns are necessary, therefore making the anti-gun ban irrational.
Original post by jambojim97
Ahh you don't care. So are you just a stereotypical right-winger who has no heart? How do you know she was a Muslim? There is more than one religion in Iran, you know. Look at the picture on the article. I see no hijab! She's hardly going to be a Jihadist now, is she? Frankly, whether or not you care is irrelevant. We are a global community and frankly we have a shared responsibility for eachother's wellbeing. You're never going to agree with me on that given your statist worldview, so not a lot of point. But ultimately, that does not mitigate the fact that she is a human being, with rights, who was treated inhumanely by a draconian regime.
Ahh you don't care. So are you just a stereotypical right-winger who has no heart? How do you know she was a Muslim? There is more than one religion in Iran, you know. Look at the picture on the article. I see no hijab! She's hardly going to be a Jihadist now, is she? Frankly, whether or not you care is irrelevant. We are a global community and frankly we have a shared responsibility for eachother's wellbeing. You're never going to agree with me on that given your statist worldview, so not a lot of point. But ultimately, that does not mitigate the fact that she is a human being, with rights, who was treated inhumanely by a draconian regime.
I shouldn't have to shoot this down, but okay.
Iran is a Muslim country, whether you agree with me or not (Islam is the religion of 99.4% of Iranians. 90-95% of Iranians are Shi'a and 5-10% are Sunni). Although the US is basing the ban on radicalism and Islamic ideology, they're not explicitly banning people based on their ideology, but their birth residence. She is from Iran, which is unfortunate for her, and she may be a good person, but for this immigration system to work, you have to lump people together. That does not make you a fascist, or somebody who hates human beings, it is precaution and putting your own country first.
Stupid people here believe that Iran really poses any kind of terrorist threat. 
Their arguments have no weight when we consider that Saudi Arabia (a real threat with explicit links to radical islam) hasn't been placed on the list. Not to mention that even if you make the argument that Iran has 'terrorist links' in sponsoring Hezbollah - Lebanon is not on the immigration order. It doesn't really add up does it.
Their arguments have no weight when we consider that Saudi Arabia (a real threat with explicit links to radical islam) hasn't been placed on the list. Not to mention that even if you make the argument that Iran has 'terrorist links' in sponsoring Hezbollah - Lebanon is not on the immigration order. It doesn't really add up does it.
Original post by Joel 96
Well, that's something.
Yes, a little.
No, because then you'll get into all sorts of realizations...
"Road accidents are more common than terrorists!"
"Food poisoning is more common than terrorists!"
"Gun murders by US citizens are more common than terrorists!"
So, the likelihood of something happening dictates the gravity of its effect? I don't think so.
The second amendment is absolutely crucial to maintaining the people's freedom in America. Kinda hard to equate that to letting Muslim immigrants in, and finding out that a small portion of them, who could have been avoided, turn out to be radical. If you can avoid unnecessary circumstances, then avoid them. Guns are necessary, therefore making the anti-gun ban irrational.
Yes, a little.
No, because then you'll get into all sorts of realizations...
"Road accidents are more common than terrorists!"
"Food poisoning is more common than terrorists!"
"Gun murders by US citizens are more common than terrorists!"
So, the likelihood of something happening dictates the gravity of its effect? I don't think so.
The second amendment is absolutely crucial to maintaining the people's freedom in America. Kinda hard to equate that to letting Muslim immigrants in, and finding out that a small portion of them, who could have been avoided, turn out to be radical. If you can avoid unnecessary circumstances, then avoid them. Guns are necessary, therefore making the anti-gun ban irrational.
Absolutely absurd analogy. The fact that terrorism has a greater effect than the numerous shootings that occur daily show something very wrong with American society and Western society in general - rooted in xenophobia.
Why is the second amendment 'crucial to maintaining people's freedom'? We seem to do fine without it. There are hardly any shootings in countries without legal gun ownership, so I fail to see the advantage.
Original post by Joel 96
I shouldn't have to shoot this down, but okay.
Iran is a Muslim country, whether you agree with me or not (Islam is the religion of 99.4% of Iranians. 90-95% of Iranians are Shi'a and 5-10% are Sunni). Although the US is basing the ban on radicalism and Islamic ideology, they're not explicitly banning people based on their ideology, but their birth residence. She is from Iran, which is unfortunate for her, and she may be a good person, but for this immigration system to work, you have to lump people together. That does not make you a fascist, or somebody who hates human beings, it is precaution and putting your own country first.
I shouldn't have to shoot this down, but okay.
Iran is a Muslim country, whether you agree with me or not (Islam is the religion of 99.4% of Iranians. 90-95% of Iranians are Shi'a and 5-10% are Sunni). Although the US is basing the ban on radicalism and Islamic ideology, they're not explicitly banning people based on their ideology, but their birth residence. She is from Iran, which is unfortunate for her, and she may be a good person, but for this immigration system to work, you have to lump people together. That does not make you a fascist, or somebody who hates human beings, it is precaution and putting your own country first.
Well that's funny, because other countries such as the UK and Canada have immigration systems which don't "lump people together" and instead individually vet people on a case-by-case basis and they appear on the whole to have the same rates of terrorism.
Original post by jambojim97
Yes they absolutely do. But at the same time, we have a right to criticise their policies and hold Donald Trump to account over his draconianism
Why do you have a right to hold DT to account?
He was democratically elected based on these policies like it or not as far as I can tell he's one of the few politicians who carries out his promises!!
They're not human rights atrocities. They're domestic policies that are none of our damn business
Original post by markova21
The link won't let me read it.
Hmm, it works - just close the registration box. You get a one-time access to that article.
But anyway Obama didn't do exactly the same. For one thing, it was only Iraq.
Try this instead (WaPo)
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Ladbants
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
They should put everyone in prison since you can't tell who might commit a crime.
Original post by Maker
They should put everyone in prison since you can't tell who might commit a crime.
That's just stupid since we're all citizens. We can, however, control which foreigners we take in.
Original post by jambojim97
Why is the second amendment 'crucial to maintaining people's freedom'? We seem to do fine without it. There are hardly any shootings in countries without legal gun ownership, so I fail to see the advantage.
Why is the second amendment 'crucial to maintaining people's freedom'? We seem to do fine without it. There are hardly any shootings in countries without legal gun ownership, so I fail to see the advantage.
I wrote an article on it.
Here in the UK, guns are a hot-topic. We do not like them, but it hasn’t always been that way. Our own bill of rights, written in 1689, gave Protestants the right to “bear arms for their defence”. Many people do not know this, and it wasn’t until the passing of the Firearms Act of 1920, that we really restricted guns to the public. It is especially important to note that mass-shootings here, although rare, have occurred only after the restriction given on firearms (Hungerford massacre, Dunblane school massacre, the Cumbria shootings, and most recently the Spalding shooting).
Mass-shootings in America went up during the 60s. Before that, there were only 4 recorded massacres. Now, why did they suddenly rise during the 60’s? Well, it’s no secret that drug use was particularly prevalent during this time. For example, Charles Whitman, the man responsible for the University of Texas massacre in ’66, was found to be on Dexedrine at the time of his death. You will find this in almost every case post-60’s.
If we are to get an increased amount of violence during a specific time, then logic only suggests that guns are not at fault, but something else. The second-amendment is absolutely precious to the American people, as it was founded on the fear of government tyranny which, in my view, is something to always fear, no matter where in the world you are and how safe you feel. History does indeed repeat itself. It has always maintained the frightening theme of governments turning against their own people.
Thus, when we criticize the US for being “gun-crazy”, it is important to recognise that we are attacking one of the very last great freedoms in the world, which is slowly diminishing. This basic freedom was taken away from the Venezuelan people, and its homicide rate subsequently rose at a frightening pace. It is now considered one of the most dangerous places in the world.
https://theabolitionoffreedom.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/gun-control/
tl;dr, different culture. A full blanket gun-ban is at least a fair argument from the left, but it couldn't be implemented in the US without violent assaults and riots. Even if I were to agree with you, which I don't, you could not implement such a ban without violence (not to mention the black market, where criminals will get them and nobody else).
Original post by markova21
President Obama did EXACTLY the same thing when he was President. Where was the outrage then?
Please elaborate on your nonsense claim (for my entertainment, if nothing else)?
Breaking: US Attorney General will NOT defend Trump bans in court.
US attorney general defies immigrant ban - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38805343
Edit to update: And now he's been fired.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38805944
US attorney general defies immigrant ban - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38805343
Edit to update: And now he's been fired.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38805944
(edited 7 years ago)
Obviously this system is flawed and she should be able to appeal or something?
Also no Iranian national has committed a terrorist attack in the US AFAIK and Iran is predominantly Shia where all terrorist attacks to my knowledge in the US have been perpetrated by Sunnis. So I don't get why Iran is on the list. Oh wait, it's devised off a terrorist list the Obama administration created
Also no Iranian national has committed a terrorist attack in the US AFAIK and Iran is predominantly Shia where all terrorist attacks to my knowledge in the US have been perpetrated by Sunnis. So I don't get why Iran is on the list. Oh wait, it's devised off a terrorist list the Obama administration created
Original post by Joel 96
Iran is a Muslim country, whether you agree with me or not (Islam is the religion of 99.4% of Iranians. 90-95% of Iranians are Shi'a and 5-10% are Sunni).
The official statistics have no credibility as there is no option for "atheist" on the census, and nor do these statistics reflect the distinction between (i) cultural identification as Muslim (akin to cultural identification as Christian in the UK) and (ii) being a practising/believing Muslim.
In fact, Iran's police chief in 2011 even said that he estimated that up to 50% of Iranians in Tehran don't fast during Ramadan (a core facet of Islam). Thousands of Iranians spontaneously took to the streets to hold candle light vigils in response to the 9/11 attacks. All of the 30 MPs elected from Tehran in the 2016 Parliament elections were reformists (despite 99% of reformist candidates being banned from running in the elections). There is a growing backlash against Islam among the youth of Iran (over 50% of the population are under 24) - the result of an Islamist theocracy governing (and to a large extent hindering) their day-to-day lives.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/10/iranians-fast-ramadan.html
https://photosiran.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/irans-exceptional-reaction-to-911-attacks-candlelit-vigils-for-the-victims-and-60k-soccer-fans-respected-a-minutes-silence-2/
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.705856
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Ladbants
That's just stupid since we're all citizens. We can, however, control which foreigners we take in.
I would say threats from within are even more of a pressing concern.
Original post by markova21
Obama banned refugees for six months.
Again, as per my previous reply, it was quite different. It was only Iraq. It was in response to a specific threat. And, actually, not all were banned even during that period.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- english language paper 2 question 5
- Doctoral loan 29k, dont need it but should I use it
- Budget/rent for research council stipend
- Ask a Cranfield University Student!
- choosing a Cambridge college
- PhD at Cambridge with pets
- Guardian - UK middle classes ‘struggling despite incomes of up to £60,000 a year’
- Getting expelled from university
- Official SOAS University of London Postgraduate Applicant Thread for 2024
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- uni students... ask me anything
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
- Summer Internship Accommodation London
- Why chemistry graduate jobs so competitive?? I don't know what to do.
- Recommend a dog breed
- Second Year Advice/Tips?
- My MSc is harder than my PhD
- The official Cranfield University Ask Us Anything
- Was X a rule in your house?
- Warwick vs Plymouth: the arts, mental health, quality of life, and more
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
