Iranian PHD student banned from US despite having a house, job, dog and car
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Sammylou40
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
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
As another human being. That's like asking "why do you have the right to hold Hitler or Stalin or Mao to account?" lel
Original post by Sammylou40
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
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
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=69846456&postcount=16
What relevance does the fact that he has 'a house, job, dog and car' have? Trump's policy is to limit the number of people coming from these countries as they were outlined BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION as being countries where people who may want to harm the US would originate from.
The fact that he has the things listed above does not guarantee that he will not commit an act of terror.
People are painting this executive order as the end of western democracy and the worst thing to happen ever. There has been a little over 150 people halted at the border. They are simply being asked to return to their country of origin. Calm down.
The fact that he has the things listed above does not guarantee that he will not commit an act of terror.
People are painting this executive order as the end of western democracy and the worst thing to happen ever. There has been a little over 150 people halted at the border. They are simply being asked to return to their country of origin. Calm down.
Original post by mashbbk
Well the one thing that strikes me as showing how ridiculous the ban is, is not only the exclusion of Saudi Arabia, but Pakistan too. How do Trump supporters explain that.
Saudia Arabia is very rich and influential, no one in America would try to piss them off because they could stop accepting the US dollar for oil and start accepting Euros or Yuans. That would not only destroy the US economy but transfer a huge amount of power to the EU or China.
Its does not matter how many terrorists come from SA, America would never put a travel ban on Saudis.
Pakistan is essential to the fight against the Taliban in Afganisatan, America would not piss them off either even though lots of Taliban fighters come through Pakistan and the Pakistan intelligence service hid Bin Laden.
Original post by JustAGuyy
What relevance does the fact that he has 'a house, job, dog and car' have? Trump's policy is to limit the number of people coming from these countries as they were outlined BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION as being countries where people who may want to harm the US would originate from.
The fact that he has the things listed above does not guarantee that he will not commit an act of terror.
People are painting this executive order as the end of western democracy and the worst thing to happen ever. There has been a little over 150 people halted at the border. They are simply being asked to return to their country of origin. Calm down.
The fact that he has the things listed above does not guarantee that he will not commit an act of terror.
People are painting this executive order as the end of western democracy and the worst thing to happen ever. There has been a little over 150 people halted at the border. They are simply being asked to return to their country of origin. Calm down.
Why give Obama the credit for this EO?
Original post by Joel 96
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).
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).
Awwww bless! What a cute little blog post you wrote.
But flawed. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you are suggesting that there would have been FEWER mass shootings if, since 1920, the gun restrictions had not been implemented. You are making a causal assumption and I thus refer to the good old saying that correlation does not equal causation.
And don't even think about saying that because the majority of shootings occurred post-1920, this means that we shouldn't have introduced regulations. The first gun massacre in the UK after 1920 was in 1987. That's 67 years after the gun legislation was implemented. Surely if you argument was to stand, there would be a steady trend or increase in gun massacres after legislation was first implemented. Regardless, the absurdly liberal gun laws in the United States, where some states have barely ANY vetting, means that it's death-by-firearm rate stands at 10.54 per 100,000 people. This is exponentially higher than Britain's rate of 0.23
And please don't regarding Venezuela and other such countries. These are DEVELOPING countries, with high levels of police corruption and poor implementation of policy.
Oh, by the way, Charles Whitman was in Texas. Texas's gun laws are probably the most lax of any of the states. No background checks whatsoever.
EDIT: Also, let me just point out that you are bait-n-switching in order to make it appear that you are winning the argument, which you are not.
THERE! Your chance of being killed by a terrorist is EXPONENTIONALLY, I repeat, EXPONENTIONALLY (or should I say bigly) lower than all of the below.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by JustAGuyy
What relevance does the fact that he has 'a house, job, dog and car' have? Trump's policy is to limit the number of people coming from these countries as they were outlined BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION as being countries where people who may want to harm the US would originate from.
The fact that he has the things listed above does not guarantee that he will not commit an act of terror.
People are painting this executive order as the end of western democracy and the worst thing to happen ever. There has been a little over 150 people halted at the border. They are simply being asked to return to their country of origin. Calm down.
The fact that he has the things listed above does not guarantee that he will not commit an act of terror.
People are painting this executive order as the end of western democracy and the worst thing to happen ever. There has been a little over 150 people halted at the border. They are simply being asked to return to their country of origin. Calm down.
Sigh... Obama's EO was for Iraq only. And wasn't a blanket ban.
And the person is a she. She's been in the US for over 6 years. She had a valid visa. She pays US taxes. Her firm is sponsoring her Green Card.
And where's your source for the number affected? Homeland Security itself was reporting 350+ 2 days ago. I imagine that's increased since.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-travelers-idUSKBN15D036?il=0
And the total number affected is MUCH greater. Potentially 90,000+.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/30/the-number-of-people-affected-by-trumps-travel-ban-about-90000/?utm_term=.b9d976b542a9
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Maker
Saudia Arabia is very rich and influential, no one in America would try to piss them off because they could stop accepting the US dollar for oil and start accepting Euros or Yuans. That would not only destroy the US economy but transfer a huge amount of power to the EU or China.
Its does not matter how many terrorists come from SA, America would never put a travel ban on Saudis.
Pakistan is essential to the fight against the Taliban in Afganisatan, America would not piss them off either even though lots of Taliban fighters come through Pakistan and the Pakistan intelligence service hid Bin Laden.
Its does not matter how many terrorists come from SA, America would never put a travel ban on Saudis.
Pakistan is essential to the fight against the Taliban in Afganisatan, America would not piss them off either even though lots of Taliban fighters come through Pakistan and the Pakistan intelligence service hid Bin Laden.
Pakistan is the source of a lot of terror propaganda and even bombers itself. It has been criticised by the U.S. themselves that it doesn't do enough against the terrorism within Pakistan, so you're argument doesn't hold up.
Bloody Hitler again!!!!!!
It is not an atrocity. USA has an absolute right to defend its borders
It's for 90 days for gods sake. They voted for it, they wanted it, they got it. If doing this enables them to carry out more stringent checks in the long run so be it. If they extend it or add to list so be it.
It is not a world without borders and neither should it be. Why do people think they have an absolute right to pile up anywhere they please and be welcomed with open arms
And with regards to op, if she wanted to be in USA that desperately she should have applied for citizenship by now. If not then it seems she wants all the good bits and its bit her on the bum. There'll be an appeal, more checks and she'll probably be allowed in. Get over it. Again, why should people think they can go anywhere they please?
The obvious? Don't like it? Don't go. Simple
Original post by Sammylou40
The obvious? Don't like it? Don't go. Simple
She did like it. She loves America. She simply went back to Iran for the holidays after which she was simply returning to a place she likes, and got pulled off a connecting flight in Dubai.
Not simples at all. Not even close.
Original post by jneill
She did like it. She loves America. She simply went back to Iran for the holidays after which she was simply returning to a place she likes, and got pulled off a connecting flight in Dubai.
Not simples at all. Not even close.
Not simples at all. Not even close.
A place she likes??? Well so what? I like many places. I don't plonk myself down and think I can stay regardless of the rules. There is a fantastic villa I've used for a break. Shall I move in? Because I like it there why shouldn't I?
The rules have changed. Don't go now if you don't like it.
If she liked it that much she should have applied for citizenship like I said.
She is not a citizen and they have an absolute right
to allow admittance to whom they please. Again, people believe they can pole up where they want and that said country will welcome them. Well they don't. And don't have to. To please the bleeding hearts? Tosh!
Original post by Sammylou40
A place she likes??? Well so what? I like many places. I don't plonk myself down and think I can stay regardless of the rules. There is a fantastic villa I've used for a break. Shall I move in? Because I like it there why shouldn't I?
The rules have changed. Don't go now if you don't like it.
If she liked it that much she should have applied for citizenship like I said.
She is not a citizen and they have an absolute right
to allow admittance to whom they please. Again, people believe they can pole up where they want and that said country will welcome them. Well they don't. And don't have to. To please the bleeding hearts? Tosh!
The rules have changed. Don't go now if you don't like it.
If she liked it that much she should have applied for citizenship like I said.
She is not a citizen and they have an absolute right
to allow admittance to whom they please. Again, people believe they can pole up where they want and that said country will welcome them. Well they don't. And don't have to. To please the bleeding hearts? Tosh!
She was obeying the rules, and contributing to American society. Then Trump changed the rules.
You say she doesn't have to go now if she doesn't like the new rules; but she has no alternative, she CAN'T go. She still wants to, but the rules don't permit it.
BTW she was on a valid Student Visa and applying for her Green Card - the most common route to citizenship. Citizenship takes at least 5 years after getting the Green Card. She was following the rules.
Pah!
Original post by jneill
You mean Iraq
The comparison is a bad attempt at obfuscation; that only applied to Iraqi refugees and didn't stop legal immigration, i.e. on a student visa, or those already living in the US with green cards
Original post by jneill
Sigh... Obama's EO was for Iran only. And wasn't a blanket ban.
And the person is a she. She's been in the US for over 6 years. She had a valid visa. She pays US taxes. Her firm is sponsoring her Green Card.
And where's your source for the number affected? Homeland Security itself was reporting 350+ 2 days ago. I imagine that's increased since.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-travelers-idUSKBN15D036?il=0
And the total number affected is MUCH greater. Potentially 90,000+.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/30/the-number-of-people-affected-by-trumps-travel-ban-about-90000/?utm_term=.b9d976b542a9
And the person is a she. She's been in the US for over 6 years. She had a valid visa. She pays US taxes. Her firm is sponsoring her Green Card.
And where's your source for the number affected? Homeland Security itself was reporting 350+ 2 days ago. I imagine that's increased since.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-travelers-idUSKBN15D036?il=0
And the total number affected is MUCH greater. Potentially 90,000+.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/30/the-number-of-people-affected-by-trumps-travel-ban-about-90000/?utm_term=.b9d976b542a9
get over it. you're probably some middle class social warrior typing from your macbook pro. americans voted him in. at least 50% of americans support this ban. they want it. it's their country. not yours. stop being so butthurt
Original post by Palmyra
You mean Iraq
The comparison is a bad attempt at obfuscation; that only applied to Iraqi refugees and didn't stop legal immigration, i.e. on a student visa, or those already living in the US with green cards
The comparison is a bad attempt at obfuscation; that only applied to Iraqi refugees and didn't stop legal immigration, i.e. on a student visa, or those already living in the US with green cards
Ah good spot. I'll edit accordingly
And yes, it's yet another alternative truth. Which if it gets said often enough by DT it seems to become fact.
Original post by JustAGuyy
get over it. you're probably some middle class social warrior typing from your macbook pro. americans voted him in. at least 50% of americans support this ban. they want it. it's their country. not yours. stop being so butthurt
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=69846456&postcount=16
Original post by JustAGuyy
get over it. you're probably some middle class social warrior typing from your macbook pro. americans voted him in. at least 50% of americans support this ban. they want it. it's their country. not yours. stop being so butthurt
What's wrong? Can't you handle the heat?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jneill
She was obeying the rules, and contributing to American society. Then Trump changed the rules.
You say she doesn't have to go now if she doesn't like the new rules; but she has no alternative, she CAN'T go. She still wants to, but the rules don't permit it.
BTW she was on a valid Student Visa and applying for her Green Card - the most common route to citizenship. Citizenship takes at least 5 years after getting the Green Card. She was following the rules.
Pah!
You say she doesn't have to go now if she doesn't like the new rules; but she has no alternative, she CAN'T go. She still wants to, but the rules don't permit it.
BTW she was on a valid Student Visa and applying for her Green Card - the most common route to citizenship. Citizenship takes at least 5 years after getting the Green Card. She was following the rules.
Pah!
You clearly did not read what I said. I was referring to future visitors from now on. As I said twice. She had been there long enough to apply already and didn't
And rules change everywhere all the time. That's life
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
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
ok cool quote mate
but at the end of the day the people of america want this ban. if it means a couple of iranian/iraqi students/business people or whatever not being allowed in and this is getting you to so much then I think you need to look at the bigger problems in the world
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
- 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?
- Ask a Cranfield University Student!
- Summer Internship Accommodation London
- Why chemistry graduate jobs so competitive?? I don't know what to do.
- Recommend a dog breed
- Why do people let their cats go outside?
- Was X a rule in your house?
- My MSc is harder than my PhD
- Warwick vs Plymouth: the arts, mental health, quality of life, and more
- Second Year Advice/Tips?
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
2023 ** Borders and Enforcement, Crime & Compliance - ICE - Immigration OfficersLast reply 15 minutes ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 33 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 44 minutes ago
Government Social Research Placement interview questionsLast reply 50 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 hour ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsTrending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
