Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    If someone is a citizen they're not a traveler...he's blockading, or attempting, Muslim migrants, with or without visas/cards. Not tourists.
    This stream of consciousness would not be out of place at a Trump press conference.

    This ban does not discriminate on grounds of religion within the 7 countries concerned, so an Iranian Jew studying in a university in the US with a valid visa (having gone through all the procedural requirements and vetting to get this), who left the country for a week to visit a family member in hospital, would not be permitted to re-enter the country to resume his studies.

    In contrast, a Saudi/Indonesian Muslim has no problem - as these countries are not included in the ban.

    (Original post by 0to100)
    yes I am triggered, and what?
    You are not a pretty sight.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    According to the 2011 census approx 9,000, but accurate figures are hard to come by, and many give estimates in the 20-45,000 region. Still the highest population in the region outside of Israel, regardless (and the least anti-Semitic society in the region, with an Iranian Jewish MP and an Iranian Chief Rabbi).
    The links in Wiki in this case are not valid or not reliable.
    The number (8,756) in the 2011 census corresponds to the 2006 census - 9,252.
    I suppose that today there is about 8,000 Jews in Iran.
    Still Iran has one "of the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel" - just because Arab countries expelled all Jews.
    Appointed Jewish MP and Chief Rabbi are irrelevant. During last 40 years the Jewish population in Iran decreased tenfold - this is important.
    Regardless, under this policy, an Iranian Jew is refused entry, but a Saudi Muslim isn't - you approve of this?
    Current restrictions are temporal and I consider them rather as a declaration of Trump's intentions.
    Anyway, practically there is no immigration from Saudi Arabia to the US, maybe excluding children of rich sheikhs in American universities. Saudi Arabia does not consider the US as an evil enemy and doesn't encourage its citizens to chant "Death to America!".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    This stream of consciousness would not be out of place at a Trump press conference.

    This ban does not discriminate on grounds of religion within the 7 countries concerned, so an Iranian Jew studying in a university in the US with a valid visa (having gone through all the procedural requirements and vetting to get this), who left the country for a week to visit a family member in hospital, would not be permitted to re-enter the country to resume his studies.

    In contrast, a Saudi/Indonesian Muslim has no problem - as these countries are not included in the ban.


    You are not a pretty sight.
    Are you Muslim?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    But over 60 million people also support it.
    I'm not too sure about this, perhaps they support some sort of "Muslim ban", so anything that bans some Muslims is something these people would probably support - even notwithstanding the fact that from a terrorism POV the wrong countries have been banned (nobody has been killed in a terrorist attacked by nationals of the 7 countries banned, whereas 15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens). The real concern is homegrown terrorism, and this is not going to help prevent this, if anything, it will serve as ammunition for radical preachers and ISIS etc.

    But as we know, Trump supporters don't particularly care about facts or reality.

    As a side note, it's not in your best interests to mention raw numbers - as you should know over 3 million more people voted for Hillary than Trump, so a clear majority of voters would presumably not support this policy.

    He didn't even ban the most predominantly Muslim countries because first of all he's not exactly trying to.
    Sorry, what? So in Trump's "Muslim ban" you are telling me his aim is not to actually ban Muslims? What is his aim, then? Please enlighten us.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    During last 40 years the Jewish population in Iran decreased tenfold - this is important.
    And during the last 5-10 years the remaining Jews in Iran have largely rejected huge cash (etc) incentives to move to Israel - this is important.

    Current restrictions are temporal
    No one knows how temporal - it looks likely that he will simply renew the EO at the end of the 90 days.

    Anyway, practically there is no immigration from Saudi Arabia to the US, maybe excluding children of rich sheikhs in American universities. Saudi Arabia does not consider the US as an evil enemy and doesn't encourage its citizens to chant "Death to America!".
    Why is a government's policy relevant here? If Iranian students study in the US (as thousands do) then I think we can safely assume they do not hate the US - besides, there is already a stringent vetting process in place, this blanket ban is misguided and unnecessary.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    I'm not too sure about this, perhaps they support some sort of "Muslim ban", so anything that bans some Muslims is something these people would probably support - even notwithstanding the fact that from a terrorism POV the wrong countries have been banned (nobody has been killed in a terrorist attacked by nationals of the 7 countries banned, whereas 15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens). The real concern is homegrown terrorism, and this is not going to help prevent this, if anything, it will serve as ammunition for radical preachers and ISIS etc.

    But as we know, Trump supporters don't particularly care about facts or reality.

    As a side note, it's not in your best interests to mention raw numbers - as you should know over 3 million more people voted for Hillary than Trump, so a clear majority of voters would presumably not support this policy.


    Sorry, what? So in Trump's "Muslim ban" you are telling me his aim is not to actually ban Muslims? What is his aim, then? Please enlighten us.
    It doesn't matter how many people support Hillary. The point is, several millions still support Trump. Why else do you think people are so outspoken and emotional when it comes to what he says and does? Because they know how many people back him. And who cares about the popular vote at the end of the day. Yes the actual title of the foreign policy doesn't even say Muslim Ban. That's just left wing media buzzwords used to wind people like your wonderful self up. His goal is to prevent terrorism and overwhelming migration. Many just happen to be Muslims and that's only the Muslim's fault. To be honest if he blockaded India and Pakistan there'd probably be a war or something, he's not a complete fool.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    It doesn't matter how many people support Hillary. The point is, several millions still support Trump. And who cares about the popular vote at the end of the day.
    Too incoherent for me, I'm afraid.

    Yes the actual title of the foreign policy doesn't even say Muslim Ban. That's just left wing media buzzwords used to wind people like your wonderful self up.
    It is Trump himself who announced his policy as a "complete shutdown on Muslims entering the U.S.".

    His goal is to prevent terrorism
    At least we have some clarity. In that case, why does the ban apply to 7 countries which have never produced a terrorist that killed US citizens? Why hasn't he included the 4 countries whose citizens comprised the 9/11 hijackers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) - the biggest terrorist attack in US history, yet none of these Muslim countries are included in his "Muslim ban" designed to prevent terrorism.

    Lastly, the real threat of terrorism is in the homegrown context - banning Iraqis with a green card or Syrians with a legal visa is not going to help prevent this. Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosques are a major driver of radicalisation of homegrown terrorists, so if his aim if to prevent terrorism then that is where he should start.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    To be honest if he blockaded India and Pakistan there'd probably be a war or something, he's not a complete fool.
    Why would he ever want to blockade India? (India is Hindu majority 80% and Hindus had donated millions to his campaign)
    And why would there be a war? Who would be involved?

    "Not visa ban but extreme vetting for Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia"
    http://www.firstpost.com/world/not-v...p-3223890.html
    Not getting a visa ban but still..
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vikram Mansingh)
    Why would he ever want to blockade India? (India is Hindu majority 80% and Hindus had donated millions to his campaign)
    Perhaps because India has the second largest population of Muslims of any country in the world (almost 200 million Muslims - more than all the countries in the ban put together), and this is supposedly a ban on Muslims.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Out of curiosity, do any of the countries on Trumps list have their own ban on travel to and from Israel?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...aeli_passports

    Yes they do!

    Can any of the snowflake currently so triggered by Trumps outrage please direct me to the thread expressing the same outrage regarding Muslim countries banning travel from Israel?

    I doubt it very much.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vikram Mansingh)
    Why would he ever want to blockade India? (India is Hindu majority 80% and Hindus had donated millions to his campaign)
    And why would there be a war? Who would be involved?

    "Not visa ban but extreme vetting for Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia"
    http://www.firstpost.com/world/not-v...p-3223890.html
    Not getting a visa ban but still..
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Exactly, that's what I'm saying. All over this thread, and others, people are scratching their heads why he didn't ban Indonesia, India, etc. And I said because he's not a fool is he? So we don't disagree with him not banning India, perhaps for different reasons but whatever. And yes there would be a war or a civil revolt, call to be impeached, etc. He could anger some extremists if not terrorists from India and Pakistan if he did ban them, or make his political life hell at the very least; Pakistanis and Indians have far more first world representation than some of the countries he's banned and it's not economic to anger or ban certain Muslim countries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Can any of the snowflake currently so triggered by Trumps outrage please direct me to the thread expressing the same outrage regarding Muslim countries banning travel from Israel?

    I doubt it very much.
    Perhaps some of us believe that, as the leader of the free world, the U.S. should not hold itself to the standards of Saudi Arabia (who ban Israelis, have a Jewish population of 0, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi - and Saudi are not in the ban).
    • Offline

      17
      Unfortunately a Sudanese Stanford PhD student and Harvard graduate that has had a green card for 22 years was handcuffed and interrogated for 5 hours at JFK. She was returning from a research trip in Sudan. Apparently she was questioned about ther political views, her research and her travels.

      She told news outlets it was a humiliating experience and couldn't help but break down into tears when she was handcuffed.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      This ban seems completely insane to me. But after reading your original post I realised something. Ever since Trump has gotten inside the White House, he's been keeping his promises to his supporters. Whether or not you agree with his promises, you have to agree that he's been doing what he said he will. This is why I think he imposed this Muslim ban. To keep his supporters happy, he only banned immigrants and refugees from a select few Muslim countries and the ban is also temporary. The ban isn't even a real Muslim ban like you said because Muslims from other countries can still get in. I think he's purposely framing it as a Muslim ban to get the word out that it is specifically a Muslim ban to drive attention away from the real reason, the ban just being called a "Muslim ban" will keep his supporters happy, many won't even bother to look into it.

      Maybe I'm giving him too much credit but I'm damn sure he's a lot smarter than he looks, yeah he's been sued multiple times, had several companies of his go bankrupt and all but then end of the day, he's a successful businessman and all of those things happen on the way to being one.

      I can't really do much about this ban despite hating it but what I can do is hope that this temporary ban goes away quick, Trump supporters calm down and the situation improved for refugees and immigrants alike.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      Perhaps because India has the second largest population of Muslims of any country in the world (almost 200 million Muslims - more than all the countries in the ban put together), and this is supposedly a ban on Muslims.
      OK but why would he ban non-Muslim Indians (87 % of Indians) aswell? If he only wants to ban Muslim's.
      Why would he ban the whole country?

      "Hindu Indian American donates $ 1.1 mn ,Trump pledges strong Indo-US ties"
      http://www.firstpost.com/politics/tr...s-3054362.html
      I doubt he would want to ban non Muslim Indians aswell.

      "Republican Hindu coalition pledges to donate at least 10 million$ to GOP candidates"
      http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...ers-for-launch
      Posted from TSR Mobile
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      Too incoherent for me, I'm afraid.


      It is Trump himself who announced his policy as a "complete shutdown on Muslims entering the U.S.".


      At least we have some clarity. In that case, why does the ban apply to 7 countries which have never produced a terrorist that killed US citizens? Why hasn't he included the 4 countries whose citizens comprised the 9/11 hijackers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) - the biggest terrorist attack in US history, yet none of these Muslim countries are included in his "Muslim ban" designed to prevent terrorism.

      Lastly, the real threat of terrorism is in the homegrown context - banning Iraqis with a green card or Syrians with a legal visa is not going to help prevent this. Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosques are a major driver of radicalisation of homegrown terrorists, so if his aim if to prevent terrorism then that is where he should start.
      It's not incoherent; are you denying that 60 or so million people voting for Trump isn't a lot of people? You're saying it's not just because he didn't win the popular vote? With that "logic" we can say the same about those who voted remain, which I bet you did; I guess your opinion doesn't matter since you lost the popular vote then...

      Anyway he announced the policy as such but the text is for more elaborated than that and many of it looks reasonable on paper. Which is why most of it is working though it's hard to say for how long. Everyone knows Trump would shoot a gun if you told him it would make him fly; he'll do stupid **** for acceptance and so far it's working. It made him POTUS.

      Why are you asking me why the ban doesn't apply to those countries? Did I write the damn order? And like I said to someone else just now India, Pakistan, at least, are economic benefits to many western countries. That's why they've not been banned though you can hardly say they've NEVER "produced" a terrorist. Somalia is 3rd world and therefore while it's ****ed up to do this to them, it's also not an economic loss or a military threat to ban them. Simply including them in the ban is a massive statement to Muslims from those countries not banned. He killed two birds with one stone. He'd truly be out of his ****ing mind to ban Egypt and UAE and Saudi, are you seriously asking these questions...

      It is going to "help" prevent it. It definitely won't completely prevent it. But obviously if they can't come into the country... Anyway there's still other countries for migrants to go to. And probably better countries than USA. Ok the be all end all of ending or trying to prevent terrorism isn't not letting people come in, though it's a massive step. The other steps is tackling domestic terrorism, which I'm sure will happen, it's only been a week since he's been inaugurated bruh..
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      Yesterday, Trump affirmed a ban on entry of individuals from 7 "detrimental" countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. This ban seems incredibly disproportionate and misguided.

      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 refugees. 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 the 9/11 hijackers were from the 7 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. Many intelligence agencies have recognised the problem of Saudi-funded radicalisation across the West, with both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump acknowledging this problem (quote below) - yet, for some reason, what Trump called "the world's biggest funders of terrorism" (Saudi Arabia) did not manage to make it onto his "Muslim Ban", ostensibly designed to protect Americans from terrorism.



      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/w...slam.html?_r=0
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-you...b_6501916.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6763366.html

      Lastly, I think it is worth noting the pure insanity of the ban. 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.
      Because Obama messed up Libya.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      Perhaps some of us believe that, as the leader of the free world, the U.S. should not hold itself to the standards of Saudi Arabia (who ban Israelis, have a Jewish population of 0, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi - and Saudi are not in the ban).
      Well, that could be viewed as a reasonable point.

      However, if such a ban is wrong when the US implements it, its equally wrong when Saudi implements a similar ban.

      Where is your outrage,why do you ignore it?

      As it stands your current "outrage" would appear to be empty posturing.

      Your silence on the Muslim states that impose a travel ban on Israelis while screaming your outrage at Trumps ban on Muslims is left wing hypocrisy,simple as that.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      In that case, why does the ban apply to 7 countries which have never produced a terrorist that killed US citizens? Why hasn't he included the 4 countries whose citizens comprised the 9/11 hijackers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) - the biggest terrorist attack in US history, yet none of these Muslim countries are included in his "Muslim ban" designed to prevent terrorism.
      There is arguably a connection between Yemen and the 9/11 attacks, with many of the attackers either being of Yemeni origin or coming from regions of Saudi Arabia such as Asir which border Yemen, which were Yemeni pocessions in the past and are considered a part of Greater Yemen (over which Saudia Arabia and Yemen have gone to war over). I think also a large number of inmates in Guantanamo Bay are also Yemeni. So I think Yemen could be argued to have some links to terrorist attacks in America and is clearly percieved by the United States to be a state closely linked with terrorism.

      But that said, the policy being implemented by Donald Trump doesn't really make much sense overall and its basis seems rather illogical.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by 0to100)
      Exactly, that's what I'm saying. All over this thread, and others, people are scratching their heads why he didn't ban Indonesia, India, etc. And I said because he's not a fool is he? So we don't disagree with him not banning India, perhaps for different reasons but whatever. And yes there would be a war or a civil revolt, call to be impeached, etc. He could anger some extremists if not terrorists from India and Pakistan if he did ban them, or make his political life hell at the very least; Pakistanis and Indians have far more first world representation than some of the countries he's banned and it's not economic to anger or ban certain Muslim countries.
      Yeah i agree, i think he's not banning Muslims he's just banning countries. If he wanted to ban Muslims as a whole then he would not have banned countries but just Muslims altogether irrespective of which countries of a whole.

      A better strategy would be to develop even better relations with India and its Hindu nationalist government(which is not going to get out of power for at least the next 8 years). That would be the best thing to do if he wants to piss off the Islamic extremists and terroristsin India, this would be a better way rather than making enemies out of natural allies and getting Hindus(Also Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists) to hate him aswell now.

      I think Trump will probably go this route.

      Trump also owns millions of dollars worth of real estate in India
      http://www.investopedia.com/news/who...artners-india/

      If he was to go forward with such a thing then he would undo all the progress made during the Obama admin ever since relations started improving after the 2008 indo-US nuclear deal.

      In short India is too important of a country and Trump is not dumb like many people think he is.
      Posted from TSR Mobile
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: March 31, 2017
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  3. 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.

  4. 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.