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

      18
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      The problem with this, however, is that in many of these Muslim countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, there is no option on the census for "atheist" - so many people will, for cultural/societal reasons, just identify as a Muslim even if they are not (similarly to how in the UK many identify as (culturally) "Christian" on the census whilst actually being atheists for all intents and purposes).
      Actually I'm pretty sure the rule for deciding someone's religion for official purposes in these countries is to do with parentage. If someone's father is a Muslim, then he or she is classed as a Muslim.

      In any case my post was about the technical aspect of it - if you wanted to try to ban the entry of new Muslims to the United States, my way would work better than Trump's, considerations of fairness aside.

      (Original post by JamesN88)
      What he should be doing(and us the same) is kick out Wahhabi preachers and shut down Saudi funded schools and mosques.

      This is just for appearances to make it look like he's following up on his promise without actually achieving anything. After all nobody wants to upset their major arms customers.
      I agree with the second part of your post but it's much too late for this to be effective. It would be helpful, no doubt, but the vast majority of people considered to be 'radicalised' today have their minds poisoned by preachers on the Internet, not all of whom are financed by the Saudi government.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Hydeman)
      Actually I'm pretty sure the rule for deciding someone's religion for official purposes in these countries is to do with parentage. If someone's father is a Muslim, then he or she is classed as a Muslim.
      Source? Never heard of that before.

      my way would work better than Trump's
      Well, that's not difficult.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      18
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      PRSOM. It's for 90 days, by the way (not 30). The most worrying thing is that Trump could simply renew this executive order every 90 days...

      There are lots of pretty sad stories to come from this already.
      COLOSSAL ABSURDITY. It's outrageous. 90 DAYS, 3 months. He thinks he can just play with their lives like that with no consequences whatsoever?

      This is unjust and incredibly cruel. There are students and employees who have the right to live in the US and they have the right to travel abroad and back as they please, when they please to do so. This order hurts the people in need.

      And what about their human rights? Sounds like a constitutional violation???

      "The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them."

      "......the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right"
      "May flatly refuses to condemn Trump for banning refugees. Totally ignores that part of the question. Won't criticise her new bestie." This tweet......

      What a chaos.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      18
      "Trump points to a 1952 law allowing the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens”, says Bier, but this ignores restrictions placed by Congress in 1965, stating no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence”.

      While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants, says Bier."

      Palmyra


      ..........
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by EC)
      COLOSSAL ABSURDITY. It's outrageous. 90 DAYS, 3 months. He thinks he can just play with their lives like that with no consequences whatsoever?

      This is unjust and incredibly cruel. There are students and employees who have the right to live in the US and they have the right to travel abroad and back as they please, when they please to do so. This order hurts the people in need.

      And what about their human rights? Sounds like a constitutional violation???

      "The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73U.S.35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them."

      "......the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right"
      "May flatly refuses to condemn Trump for banning refugees. Totally ignores that part of the question. Won't criticise her new bestie." This tweet......

      What a chaos.
      I imagine the freedom of movement only applies to U.S. citizens, not green card holders.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38781420
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      Are you telling me my family in America can't visit family in Kurdistan even if someone's really ill? Smh
      • Very Important Poster
      Online

      19
      (Original post by joe cooley)
      Some Muslims pose a risk to the West, until a foolproof way of deciding which ones, why take the risk?

      Muslim immigration is not vital to the wellbeing of the Western world.

      Its not Trumps decision to ban Muslim immigration into Britain.

      To answer your question, yes i would like to see an end to Muslim immigration into the UK.

      Islam is incompatible with Western democracy.

      Most things pose a risk. Someone did the clacylation that you are more likely to be killed by a bee than a refugee. We deal with risk every day some are ok to take others are not. In terms of fatalities, then the risk of terrorism is small.

      Thats not even the point though, its that the measures being currently taken will be inneffective.

      Nobody says Muslim immigration is vital, but we have it and there are 3.3 million in the US. Its fine if you dont wnat to interact with the muslim world, but then you have to consider that you are creating potential enemies of muslim countries and making it even more unsafe for your citizens abroad. ofc you cna tell your own citizens not to travel outside the US.

      You missed the point, which is if you see muslims as a threat, then should he ban all UK/EU muslims from visiting as well?
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by EC)
      "Trump points to a 1952 law allowing the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens”, says Bier, but this ignores restrictions placed by Congress in 1965, stating no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence”.

      While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants, says Bier."

      Palmyra

      ..........
      CAIR are holding a news conference on Monday to give the details of the lawsuit they are bringing against this executive order.

      The lawsuit, to be filed in the U.S. District Court – Western District of Virginia, will challenge the constitutionality of the order because its apparent purpose and underlying motive is to ban people of the Islamic faith from Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

      "There is no evidence that refugees – the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation – are a threat to national security," said CAIR National Litigation Director Lena F. Masri, Esq. "This is an order that is based on bigotry, not reality."
      http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300398388.html


      (Original post by saraxh)
      Are you telling me my family in America can't visit family in Kurdistan even if someone's really ill? Smh
      Depends, which "Kurdistan"? Are they citizens, or just green card holders?
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      CAIR are holding a news conference on Monday to give the details of the lawsuit they are bringing against this executive order.


      http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300398388.html



      Depends, which "Kurdistan"? Are they citizens, or just green card holders?
      Iraq and Iran. Citizens.

      I wonder why they haven't banned Saudi Arabia
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by saraxh)
      Iraq and Iran. Citizens.

      I wonder why they haven't banned Saudi Arabia
      If they're American citizens then they're fine. Your family in Iran/Iraq won't be able to visit them in America though...

      Indeed, if this is really for "terrorism" or a "Muslim ban" then Saudi Arabia should be the first name on the list (15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens!). As I wrote earlier:

      If Trump wants to "ban Muslims" or "prevent terrorism", why aren't Saudi Arabia, Turkey or the UAE included in his list of "detrimental" nations, you might ask.

      Coincidentally, Trump has substantial business interests in all these countries, but no business interests in the 7 included in the ban.

      In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Trump "lists companies on his FEC filing possibly related to a development project in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia’s second-biggest city, located outside Mecca: DT Jeddah Technical Services Manager LLC, DT Jeddah Technical Services Manager Member Corp., THC Jeddah Hotel Manager LLC and THC Jeddah Hotel Manager Member Corp".
      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/t...-of-conflicts/
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by 999tigger)
      Most things pose a risk. Someone did the clacylation that you are more likely to be killed by a bee than a refugee. We deal with risk every day some are ok to take others are not. In terms of fatalities, then the risk of terrorism is small.

      Thats not even the point though, its that the measures being currently taken will be inneffective.

      Nobody says Muslim immigration is vital, but we have it and there are 3.3 million in the US. Its fine if you dont wnat to interact with the muslim world, but then you have to consider that you are creating potential enemies of muslim countries and making it even more unsafe for your citizens abroad. ofc you cna tell your own citizens not to travel outside the US.

      You missed the point, which is if you see muslims as a threat, then should he ban all UK/EU muslims from visiting as well?
      Whoops you're right, i did miss your point.

      ban all UK/EU muslims from visiting as well?

      Heavens no, people like Richard Reid have as much right to blow up US bound airliners as a non-Muslim !

      Seriously, a quite substantial number of British Muslims were/are on the no fly list because of their links to Islamic extremism.

      Under the Dear Leader Obama, by the way.

      So, why not
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by JamesN88)
      This has belief in creationism at 42%. America is so religious because it's where a lot of loony sects emigrated to from Europe.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/be..._term=Religion
      I stand corrected. Weird.

      (Original post by Palmyra)
      "Poorly educated" does not mean "dumb".

      (Original post by Palmyra)
      Wrong (again...). There is no mention of religion:
      Why is that an image? Whatever. If there's no mention of religion why are you going on about a "muslim ban"? Also, I'm afraid you're wrong. Trump has previously stated that, at the very least, Syrian Christians will be exempt from the ban due to their status as an oppressed minority religious group.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      Indeed, if this is really for "terrorism" or a "Muslim ban" then Saudi Arabia should be the first name on the list (15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens!)
      The US should be rooting for the collapse of the Saudi kleptocracy and should also be extremely concerned about immigration from the KSA. It baffles me how that country gets away with so much.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by jape)
      "Poorly educated" does not mean "dumb".
      The video speaks for itself.

      If there's no mention of religion why are you going on about a "muslim ban"?
      Because that is what Trump is referring to it as, and its ostensible rationale.

      Trump has previously stated that, at the very least, Syrian Christians will be exempt from the ban due to their status as an oppressed minority religious group.
      He has said many things, but it seems as though he has forgotten to include this proviso in the executive order.
      • Offline

        17
        It's disappointing to hear some of the stories.
        What's really sad is that his hardline supporters quite frankly do not care nor are they willing to accept some of the reasonable criticisms of both this and the Mexico wall.

        It's telling how some of his core tsr supporters are absent from this thread to at least provide a counter argument 🤔
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Palmyra)
        If they're American citizens then they're fine. Your family in Iran/Iraq won't be able to visit them in America though...

        Indeed, if this is really for "terrorism" or a "Muslim ban" then Saudi Arabia should be the first name on the list (15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens!). As I wrote earlier:



        https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/t...-of-conflicts/
        Oh

        Preach

        I don't think this will 100% stop attacks though(Orlando shooter).
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by StrawbAri)
        It's disappointing to hear some of the stories.
        What's really sad is that his hardline supporters quite frankly do not care nor are they willing to accept some of the reasonable criticisms of both this and the Mexico wall.
        The Mexico wall (which U.S. citizens will end be paying for, btw) is at least justified in the sense that it doesn't preclude legal immigration, whereas this ban applies to those who have been granted legal visas, or have green cards (and thus a legal right to reside in the U.S.) - and bans these individuals who have gone through the legal process.
        • Offline

          18
          (Original post by Palmyra)
          Source? Never heard of that before.
          I can't find anything in English from a quick Google search, but the countries that issue passports with a religion field (the ones that officially claim to follow Sharia, that is) generally have the same policy with regards to birth certificates (which are used to apply for a passport) and I think we can safely say people don't identify with any religion just after they're born. Therefore, parentage it is.
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by saraxh)
          I don't think this will 100% stop attacks though(Orlando shooter).
          100% stop attacks? More like 0%! There have been no refugee terrorist attackers in the U.S. from the 7 countries included in this ban.

          As I (also) wrote earlier:

          if terrorism is the aim then (i) he chose the wrong countries (15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens - and Saudi, curiously, are not included in the ban), and (ii) the focus should be on home grown terrorism (enacting anti-Muslim legislation and not checking Saudi-funded Wahabbism will not serve this end).
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Hydeman)
          I can't find anything in English from a quick Google search, but the countries that issue passports with a religion field (the ones that officially claim to follow Sharia, that is) generally have the same policy with regards to birth certificates (which are used to apply for a passport) and I think we can safely say people don't identify with any religion just after they're born. Therefore, parentage it is.
          Iran's legal code is purportedly based on Sharia law, and what you have said is not true for Iranian passports (there is no "religion" field).
         
         
         
        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
      • 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
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
        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.