Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Trump 'to sign orders restricting refugees from Muslim nations' Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    The ban seems to apply to people who hold green cards as well. bet that will be a shock if you are away on business and suddenly find you cant get back in the country.
    There are reports of Iranian students in the U.S. (with valid visas) who were abroad (one visiting family in Austria), have since tried to return, and been denied entry and sent back.

    https://twitter.com/hdagres/status/825292253048557568

    What is shocking is that 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.

    This ban is incredibly ineffective and disproportionate.

    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 immigrants. 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 them were from the 6 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.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-you...b_6501916.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6763366.html

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not agree on much, but Saudi Arabia may be an exception. She has deplored Saudi Arabia’s support for “radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.” He has called the Saudis “the world’s biggest funders of terrorism.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/w...slam.html?_r=0
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    There are reports of Iranian students in the U.S. (with valid visas) who were abroad (one visiting family in Austria), have since tried to return, and been denied entry and sent back.

    https://twitter.com/hdagres/status/825292253048557568

    What is shocking is that 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.

    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.

    This ban is incredibly ineffective and disproportionate. Firstly, there are more Americans in ISIS than Iranians in ISIS. Secondly, there have been very few terrorist attacks in the U.S. by Muslim immigrants. Even fewer from the countries actually affected by ban. When we look at the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers we see that 15/19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, none of them were from the 6 countries subject to this ban. 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, starting with Saudi Arabia's funding of Wahabbism across the globe might be a good place to start.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-you...b_6501916.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6763366.html



    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/w...slam.html?_r=0
    It appeals to his core voters that something grand is being done and you dont have to look at the detail or think it through. He is picking on those countries that cant really fight back. I doubt whether he is bothered if its effecive or unjust, it will only be called into question if more attacks happen, in which case he will just say theres a need to block even more. Trump is a salesperson.
    • Offline

      17
      (Original post by Therec00)
      Vikings discovered North America before the "indians"
      Incorrect.
      The native Americans came to America via a land bridge from Asia over 20,000 years ago. The vikings arrived and tried to settle in around 1000AD but were promptly kicked out by the natives.
      • Offline

        17
        (Original post by Palmyra)
        There are reports of Iranian students in the U.S. (with valid visas) who were abroad (one visiting family in Austria), have since tried to return, and been denied entry and sent back.

        https://twitter.com/hdagres/status/825292253048557568

        What is shocking is that 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.

        This ban is incredibly ineffective and disproportionate.

        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 immigrants. 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 them were from the 6 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.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-you...b_6501916.html
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6763366.html



        https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/w...slam.html?_r=0
        What about people that are from these countries by birth but don't hold citizenship for their home countries? I.e. An Iranian that isn't a citizen of Iran but maybe of Australia and has lived in Australia all their life. Are they denied entry also?
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by StrawbAri)
        What about people that are from these countries by birth but don't hold citizenship for their home countries? I.e. An Iranian that isn't a citizen of Iran but maybe of Australia and has lived in Australia all their life. Are they denied entry also?
        I've just seen a report that "Lufthansa, Qatar, Emirates aren't taking any Iranian passport holders to the U.S., also those with Green Cards, airline official says".

        https://twitter.com/ThomasErdbrink/s...03066215854080


        I don't really understand your scenario? If they are not citizens of Iran then they should be fine. The problem is that even legal residents in the U.S. with green cards may be refused re-entry to the U.S. if they leave.
        • Offline

          17
          (Original post by Palmyra)
          I've just seen a report that "Lufthansa, Qatar, Emirates aren't taking any Iranian passport holders to the U.S., also those with Green Cards, airline official says".

          https://twitter.com/ThomasErdbrink/s...03066215854080


          I don't really understand your scenario? If they are not citizens of Iran then they should be fine. The problem is that even legal residents in the U.S. with green cards may be refused re-entry to the U.S. if they leave.
          Okay I see. The ban applies to people holding passports from these countries not exactly to people that might be from there ethnically only. (Their parents are citizens but they're not)

          To clarify: I meant, for example, both my parents are from Iran but I personally am not a citizen of Iran because I was born and raised in another country, Australia for example.
          Offline

          9
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by nulli tertius)
          I suspect I did overestimate its importance in the electoral process.

          You are however trying to compare two different things, the process of convincing voters and that of not making statements which hamstring your lawyers' freedom of argument.


          Posted from TSR Mobile
          Please explain...
          Offline

          20
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Fenice)
          Please explain...
          Exercising executive powers requires treading a tightrope between a raft of different legal constraints. If you read any of Trump's executive orders you will see they are lawyers' products signed by Trump. However Trump isn't a man to stick to the script. The danger is that he says something about what he doing that doesn't match his lawyers' carefully crafted justification for what he is doing.

          That is different from an election process where the aim is not to upset those who might be disposed to vote for you but it doesn't really matter if you upset those who will never support you.


          Posted from TSR Mobile
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
          Every President before built the Great Wall of 'Merica without congressional support?

          Every President before basically banned immigration based upon religious affiliation, all without congressional support?

          Hunh. My counter-argument would be, "Eisenhower using executive orders to decide where a base should be built is not of the same breadth, depth and extent of interpretation as Trump's. Even Obama, whom I criticized for executive ordering his health care act in to existence, did not abuse the system as much as Trump did." if that wasn't your argument, but since I already explained why he was a Statist and you stated every other president was just as bad, I'm guessing you simply aren't open to realizing just how badly he's abusing powers that have been abused in the past.

          That's cool, ,but you aren't going to find any support except from die-hard Trump supporters.
          E.O.'s are subject to judicial review and cannot contradict an act of Congress. To say they are an abuse of power simply because they by-pass Congress is ignoring the fact that there are situations which don't allow for the time that Congressional passage takes. Wartime, like when Roosevelt signed an E.O. allowing for relocation of Japanese, Italians, and Germans to internment camps. As far as Trumps E.O. go, Congress approved a wall and funds for it long ago. It;s been partially built and rebuilt in places multiple times. As for the Muslim ban. The spirit of the ban is to try and keep out unidentifiable individuals who have publicly said they will do us harm. Some of those same individuals already have. They have also said some of them will enter the country as refuges. Their not being banned because of their religious belief but rather because both, undesirables and desirables . share the name "muslim" and because of the country of origin. Religious beliefs needn't be mentioned during vetting

          I won't find any support except for die hard Trump supporters? Do you mean just the few 60 some odd million of them and growing by the hour?
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
          Every President before built the Great Wall of 'Merica without congressional support?

          Every President before basically banned immigration based upon religious affiliation, all without congressional support?

          Hunh. My counter-argument would be, "Eisenhower using executive orders to decide where a base should be built is not of the same breadth, depth and extent of interpretation as Trump's. Even Obama, whom I criticized for executive ordering his health care act in to existence, did not abuse the system as much as Trump did." if that wasn't your argument, but since I already explained why he was a Statist and you stated every other president was just as bad, I'm guessing you simply aren't open to realizing just how badly he's abusing powers that have been abused in the past.

          That's cool, ,but you aren't going to find any support except from die-hard Trump supporters.
          Congress OK' the wall years ago.
          Muslims aren't being banned because of their religious affiliation. Their being banned because of a terrorist affiliation their religion appears to have.
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Laomedeia)
          The "Mexico will pay" thing is complete tosh. Trump wants the wall then surely its only fair the U.S pays for it. Banning certain immigrants does make sense to me however.
          Go to Mexico and get caught with a joint or a 8 ball of crank and you will spend a lot of time in jail there. If your declared an illegal alien on the Mex. side and your family has money your held until you pay a ransome. It's always been like that. All illegal activity at the border happens with government approval because everyone in Gov. gets their piece of the action. The Mex. Gov. is the enemy in the war on drugs IMO this is more than enough to insist Mex. pay for the wall and to extract the money out of them any way we can.
          • Offline

            21
            (Original post by oldercon1953)
            Go to Mexico and get caught with a joint or a 8 ball of crank and you will spend a lot of time in jail there. If your declared an illegal alien on the Mex. side and your family has money your held until you pay a ransome. It's always been like that. All illegal activity at the border happens with government approval because everyone in Gov. gets their piece of the action. The Mex. Gov. is the enemy in the war on drugs IMO this is more than enough to insist Mex. pay for the wall and to extract the money out of them any way we can.
            Ok fair enough. The mexico must pay thing isnt tosh after all.
            Offline

            3
            ReputationRep:
            I'm extremely proud of President Trump for turning a blind eye to the PC brigade and the moderate Republicans and going ahead with this Muslim ban. Finally, a president who actually keeps his promises.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Len Goodman)
            I'm extremely proud of President Trump for turning a blind eye to the PC brigade and the moderate Republicans and going ahead with this Muslim ban. Finally, a president who actually keeps his promises.
            The man has balls. I don't think he's happy unless there's an obstacle he can conquer. We need radical solutions for our problems and He's not the type to allow his, "fixes" to be watered down by compromise.Now is not the time for compromise.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            Being refused by the Americans is a pretty strong endorsement that your way of life is a valid one.
           
           
           
        • See more of what you like on The Student Room

          You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

        • Poll
          Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
          Useful resources
        • See more of what you like on The Student Room

          You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

        • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

          Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

          Quick reply
          Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.