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 queen-bee)
    Yeah cos every brown person is out to get us or just aren't good enough for us,sprinkled with a dash of white supremacy.
    What does this have to do with race? It's about their beliefs; many hold views that are entirely hostile to our values. Look at the above survey, and please address the points I've made as opposed to calling me racist, because I've said nothing of the sort.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Donald Trump is expected to sign executive orders this week to prevent Syrian refugees and Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. He's also expected to order the construction of his infamous, Mexican border wall on Wednesday.

    The president is preparing to restrict access to the country from immigrants, refugees, some visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, Reuters reports, citing congressional aides briefed on the orders.

    President Trump’s restrictions will likely include a multi-month ban on admitting immigrants from all countries until the State Department and Department of Homeland Security finalize an "extreme vetting" process.

    In addition to the ban, the president will begin rolling out executive actions that include preparations for his wall on the US-Mexico border along with other enforcement plans, according to two administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press.

    On the campaign trail, Mr Trump pledged to tighten US immigration policies, including a complete ban on Muslim immigrants from entering the states. He also promised to strengthen border security by building a wall while basically forcing the Mexican government to pay for it. The promise became one of the earliest policies and staple of his campaign.

    He eventually softened his stance on both policies while promising to implement a process of extreme vetting for immigrants leaving countries in the Middle East. Come January, the newly elected president’s transition team began asking Congress to push funding for the wall through the country's appropriations budget.

    On Wednesday afternoon, the president will travel to the Department of Homeland Security to direct the agency begin construction on the wall and repair fencing along the border. The executive order will also increase the staff at the Customs and Border Protection agency by hiring an additional 5,000 employees.

    A second order seeks to eliminate sanctuary cities where governments refuse to hand over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. CNN reports that it will triple resources for Immigration and Custom Enforcement and direct the feds to identify illegal immigrants in the states.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Monday that President Trump would be making his immigration policies a priority in the coming weeks.

    "First and foremost, the President's been very, very clear that we need to direct agencies to focus on those who are in this country illegally and have a record — a criminal record or poses a threat to the American people," he said at the press briefing. "That's where the priorities going to be."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7544566.html

    For people wondering about the legality of this, it is legal, and he doesn't need congressional approval

    http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/10/...ump-muslim-ban

    Candidate Trump was never particularly specific on the policy details of how the Muslim ban would work. But with President-elect Trump set to take office in January, and his pledge to implement the ban on day one now about to be put to the test, the question looms: Will he be able to do it, and if so, how?
    I put that to several experts on US immigration law. Their answer was unanimous: Trump would be able to implement his ban. In fact, he would be able to do it easily. Congress has already granted wide power to the president to alter immigration rules, so he will not need congressional approval. If the ban is designed properly, it is virtually guaranteed to survive court challenges from liberal advocacy groups determined to derail it.
    ...
    The president has nearly unchecked authority to ban people from entering the country
    In 1952, Congress passed something called the Immigration and Nationality Act. It has been amended dozens of times subsequently, and currently exists as a 600-page behemoth with lots of very specific rules.
    There is one section, 212(f), that is particularly relevant to the Muslim ban. It sets out criteria for “excludable aliens” — which noncitizens the president can choose, using executive powers, to prevent from entering the United States. Its wording is exceptionally broad:
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
    Translated from legalese: The president can ban whoever he wants, however long he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
    “All he has to do is say ‘I think Muslims are not in the interests of the United States,’” says Stephen Legomsky, a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis and the former chief counsel for US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
    I don't understand? So only Muslims from thse countries are banned? I thought he said it would be ALL Muslims?

    Wat is happening?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    So the west should stop getting involved in their lands and arming rebels/terrorists. Khalas
    Yes, we definitely should stop. We need to sort out our foreign policy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    What does this have to do with race? It's about their beliefs; many hold views that are entirely hostile to our values. Look at the above survey, and please address the points I've made as opposed to calling me racist, because I've said nothing of the sort.
    I didn't say you were one but it just seem so to be alittle more than just values. Then again,this is trump we are talking about,and his white supremacist minions. So,should we be afraid then of the many Muslims living in our lands?
    #HEWILLNOTDIVIDEUS
    I :heart: shia LaBeouf
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Because every Syrian refugee coming to the west is An enemy who wants to try to kill us? Even the kids right?
    Of course not. But we simply do not have the capability of vetting and filtering those who will or won't present a threat towards us. Letting them into our countries is an unacceptable risk.

    I agree we should be helping refugees, especially those in countries the West has had a hand in destabilising, but we can help far greater numbers of them and with greater efficiency, in their own countries. We can build refugee camps on the borders, send aid out to them and provide the camps with a heavy military presence to protect them.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Polls have been done even among British Muslims, and they've shown that the majority are hostile to ideas such as rights for homosexuals. Some even wanted it to be illegal to insult the Prophet Muhammed. I'm not saying that every Muslim is a salafi extremist, of course that's not the case. But, why would we bother risking it when we could take an Australian, a Canadian, an American, a German, idk maybe a Chinese person, in their place? These groups will either find it much easier to integrate into a fellow western society, or will be statistically less likely to hold hostile views to our core values, but most likely will have both of these in their favour.

    Source: http://www.channel4.com/info/press/n...s-really-think
    Let's not generalise because then we end up playing identity politics.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I didn't say you were one but it just seem so to be alittle more than just values. Then again,this is trump we are talking about,and his white supremacist minions. So,should we be afraid then of the many Muslims living in our lands?
    #HEWILLNOTDIVIDEUS
    I :heart: shia LaBeouf
    I'm not saying Trump doesn't have other motivations (although, to be fair, I haven't particularly seen any evidence that he's rascist - maybe Mexican-ist though :lol:), but that doesn't discredit the policy itself as an overall good thing for the country (one of the few things that I agree with Trump on). I don't doubt that some of his supporters will be more motivated by race (in the South, for example), but there is a strong case in favour of national security/social integrity.

    As for your question, in some circles - yes, for the most part - no. It would be logical to assume that, at least for 2nd+ generation immigrants, growing up in Britain (or America, to keep with the theme of the thread) will have an impact on their way of thinking and they're less likely to hold extreme conservative values like those held in parts of the Middle East. Still, you only need to look at places like Bradford to see how 'well' the process of integration is going...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Let's not generalise because then we end up playing identity politics.
    Immigration policy has to generalise though, it would be logistically extremely difficult and costly to make the process highly-individualised. Statistically, immigrants from the West are less likely to be a security threat and more likely to integrate socially, so it makes logical sense that this is the area of immigration that should be prioritised, to the detriment of other, riskier areas.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Polls have been done even among British Muslims, and they've shown that the majority are hostile to ideas such as rights for homosexuals. Some even wanted it to be illegal to insult the Prophet Muhammed.
    I would say these figures indicate that gradually, British Muslims are becoming more progressive. The figure regarding homosexuality isn't that concerning when we look at similar polls from the US showing similar results from other religious groups (notably Catholics).

    I'm not saying that every Muslim is a salafi extremist, of course that's not the case. But, why would we bother risking it when we could take an Australian, a Canadian, an American, a German, idk maybe a Chinese person, in their place? These groups will either find it much easier to integrate into a fellow western society, or will be statistically less likely to hold hostile views to our core values, but most likely will have both of these in their favour.

    Source: http://www.channel4.com/info/press/n...s-really-think
    The risk isn't high enough to justify such outright bans on immigration from Muslim-majority countries. Americans are more likely to be killed by toddlers with guns; this policy has nothing to do with actually improving security. It's security theatre.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    I'm not saying Trump doesn't have other motivations (although, to be fair, I haven't particularly seen any evidence that he's rascist - maybe Mexican-ist though :lol:), but that doesn't discredit the policy itself as an overall good thing for the country (one of the few things that I agree with Trump on). I don't doubt that some of his supporters will be more motivated by race (in the South, for example), but there is a strong case in favour of national security/social integrity.

    As for your question, in some circles - yes, for the most part - no. It would be logical to assume that, at least for 2nd+ generation immigrants, growing up in Britain (or America, to keep with the theme of the thread) will have an impact on their way of thinking and they're less likely to hold extreme conservative values like those held in parts of the Middle East. Still, you only need to look at places like Bradford to see how 'well' the process of integration is going...
    Trump isn't a racist?! Lol you've got to be kidding me. Yes,this evening hillbillies definitely voted for him because he wasn't afraid to speak about his white supremacist views.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Trump isn't a racist?! Lol you've got to be kidding me. Yes,this evening hillbillies definitely voted for him because he wasn't afraid to speak about his white supremacist views.
    Some of his voters? Sure. I haven't particularly seen Trump himself make any racist comments though, if you can provide some sources for this then I'll gladly reverse my position though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Of course not. But we simply do not have the capability of vetting and filtering those who will or won't present a threat towards us. Letting them into our countries is an unacceptable risk.

    I agree we should be helping refugees, especially those in countries the West has had a hand in destabilising, but we can help far greater numbers of them and with greater efficiency, in their own countries. We can build refugee camps on the borders, send aid out to them and provide the camps with a heavy military presence to protect them.
    You cannot start off by not funding terrorist in the ME. Have you seen what's Aleppo looks like? Iraq? There's is no helping them In their own country because there's nothing like left of most of these war torn places.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Let's not generalise because then we end up playing identity politics.
    Ah, so using statistics is bad?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I would say these figures indicate that gradually, British Muslims are becoming more progressive. The figure regarding homosexuality isn't that concerning when we look at similar polls from the US showing similar results from other religious groups (notably Catholics).



    The risk isn't high enough to justify such outright bans on immigration from Muslim-majority countries. Americans are more likely to be killed by toddlers with guns; this policy has nothing to do with actually improving security. It's security theatre.
    Gradually, yes they are. And I'm sure that, in time, British Muslims will be able to fully integrate and become more progressive. I don't doubt that. But immigrants directly from the Middle East have grown up in an environment that doesn't support our values. Why bother using our resources to make them more progressive, when we can have immigrants from Western nations that hold these values already? (And yes, the Christian-right in America is a big concern for me. As an atheist, I dislike all religion; however the average American is going to find it far easier to integrate than the average immigrant from the ME).

    I'm not in favour of outright bans. I want immigration from these areas to be massively reduced, so that we only take people who have unique skills and attributes (perhaps a brilliant business idea, or a leading scientist). Anyone with replaceable skills should be sourced from the West and East Asia.

    Yes, guns need to be outlawed in America. I'm very much in favour of a gun ban. However, even if the threat posed by immigration is less, it doesn't mean we shouldn't address it (and it's FAR easier to address than gun rights in this instance anyway, due to the American constitution requiring 75% of states to be in favour of the gun ban to actually ratify it).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Trump isn't a racist?! Lol you've got to be kidding me. Yes,this evening hillbillies definitely voted for him because he wasn't afraid to speak about his white supremacist views.
    Can you quote something that Trump said that means he believes Whites are superior to other races?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Immigration policy has to generalise though, it would be logistically extremely difficult and costly to make the process highly-individualised. Statistically, immigrants from the West are less likely to be a security threat and more likely to integrate socially, so it makes logical sense that this is the area of immigration that should be prioritised, to the detriment of other, riskier areas.
    General policies have to be lawful though.

    Due to the terms of the US Constitution and America's history of both racial discrimination and religious discrimination (Quakers, Catholics, Jews and Mormons) there are very strong protections against discrimination and against pseudo-objective justifications for discrimination.

    There are some very high hurdles here and Trump appears to lack the subtlety to surmount them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Can you quote something that Trump said that means he believes Whites are superior to other races?
    he's said something pretty racist stuff and most people by now he's a racist,look at how violent and racist his rallies turned out to be. There was an incident of a black women at one his racist rallies,the **** he's said about Mexicans. He's a fascist,racist piece of ****. The only people i feel sorry for are the less well off white supremacists who voted for him on the basis of his race baiting rhetoric when he couldn't give two ****s about them.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56...b03260bf777e83
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    So,should we be afraid then of the many Muslims living in our lands?
    You tell us how well Muslims and non Muslims live together.

    But, as I said, and you refused to discuss (:rolleyes:), despite Muslims and Christians living side by side in Lebanon for about thirteen centuries, they still couldn't live in peace only a few decades ago and perhaps a fifth of the country were either killed
    or emigrated.

    Including, presumably, your own family.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    You tell us how well Muslims and non Muslims live together.

    But, as I said, and you refused to discuss (:rolleyes:), despite Muslims and Christians living side by side in Lebanon for about thirteen centuries, they still couldn't live in peace only a few decades ago and perhaps a fifth of the country were either killed
    or emigrated.

    Including, presumably, your own family.
    Answe the question then...should we be afraid of Muslims?in the U.K. And abroad

    Muslims,Christians and Jews have always lived peacefully for many centuries in the ME and then came the rise of salafist promoted by the KSA
    So tell me,what do you want me to do about it? Declare my hate for Arabs who are Muslims? For killing my ancestors?
 
 
 
  • 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.