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

Liberals seem to be incapable of comprehending what the "Muslim Ban" is about Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Close but no cigar.

    If a large minority of Irish people displayed the same animosity toward the West and the US in particular as a very large minority of Muslims, then yes.

    I agree Saudi should be named in the ban too.
    So you would deport every single Muslim in the US (and presumably the UK or are you American)? How are you going to do that?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    Still curious as to why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Afghanistan and Pakistan or not on the list when most of terrorist attacks on American soil have involved perpetrators from these countries including 9/11. These are also to a degree unstable countries especially Afganistan and Pakistan. İs this ban on citizens of the current seven cou tried for other reasons rather than protecting the US?
    The 7 countries concerned had actually been selected by Obama as being countries where proper vetting was almost impossible. Trump is simply following through with what Obama stared. I think I would have added Afghanistan to that list.

    Because of the instabilities in these countries and the knowledge that terrorist groups are operating there there has to be an increased vetting program. There will be people caught up in this that should be allowed to travel and hopefully be allowed to soon.

    To be honest the only ones to see the full picture would be the CIA. There are likely to be hundreds of terrorist threats that we never hear about where they are taken out before they have chance to cause any harm. There may well be known terrorists from these 7 countries that are not publicised.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Considering the great hostility British public and EU politicians are showing towards Trump with 1 British national already pleading guilty to an assassination attempt on him, it's only fair to ban Uzbekistan next.

    What's great is Trump ban has now been labelled illegal and it's gonna be fun watching it get shot down at every level of the American justice system. I hope he starts going after each of these judges personally, next. That should be a good solid first step to impeachment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You mean tell the parents that the killer would not have been caught by the ban?

    Because you know, he was American. Born in New York.
    Already covered in an earlier post.

    His parents.........

    Immigrants.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StephenWond3rboy)
    Considering the great hostility British public and EU politicians are showing towards Trump with 1 British national already pleading guilty to an assassination attempt on him, it's only fair to ban Uzbekistan next.

    What's great is Trump ban has now been labelled illegal and it's gonna be fun watching it get shot down at every level of the American justice system. I hope he starts going after each of these judges personally, next. That should be a good solid first step to impeachment.
    the great hostility British public and EU politicians are showing towards Trump

    A small portion of the British public and left wing politicians, actually.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So you would deport every single Muslim in the US (and presumably the UK or are you American)? How are you going to do that?

    No.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    No.
    But then why are you for a ban and saying things like that wouldn't happen if you hadn't let immigrants in. You are contradicting yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But then why are you for a ban and saying things like that wouldn't happen if you hadn't let immigrants in. You are contradicting yourself.
    Well, if Mateens parents had stayed in Afghanistan he wouldn't have been born in the US and wouldn't have had the opportunity to slaughter people in a US nightclub. FACT.

    Muslims with the right to be in the US should be treated on an individual basis, ordinary decent ones left alone those involved in Islamic extremism should be prosecuted and or deported when possible.

    I don't recall anyone but you suggesting all Muslims should be deported.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Well, if Mateens parents had stayed in Afghanistan he wouldn't have been born in the US and wouldn't have had the opportunity to slaughter people in a US nightclub. FACT.

    Muslims with the right to be in the US should be treated on an individual basis, ordinary decent ones left alone those involved in Islamic extremism should be prosecuted and or deported when possible.

    I don't recall anyone but you suggesting all Muslims should be deported.
    Yes you didn't say it but it was what you implied. If only that ban would have been in existence before. What is the ban going to do now, that so many Muslims already live in the US, or the UK for that matter? IS do not need to send jihadis to the UK, they just need to recruit young teenagers on the internet.

    How are you going to judge the entire Muslim population of the US "on an individual basis"?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yes you didn't say it but it was what you implied. If only that ban would have been in existence before. What is the ban going to do now, that so many Muslims already live in the US, or the UK for that matter? IS do not need to send jihadis to the UK, they just need to recruit young teenagers on the internet.

    How are you going to judge the entire Muslim population of the US "on an individual basis"?
    No, you inferred it.

    Yes there are a lot of Muslims in the US and the UK some who are hostile to Western democracy, why let more in?

    How are you going to judge the entire Muslim population of the US "on an individual basis"

    Already answered.

    Muslims with the right to be in the US should be treated on an individual basis, ordinary decent ones left alone those involved in Islamic extremism should be prosecuted and or deported when possible.

    Important bit in bold.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    No, you inferred it.

    Yes there are a lot of Muslims in the US and the UK some who are hostile to Western democracy, why let more in?

    How are you going to judge the entire Muslim population of the US "on an individual basis"

    Already answered.

    Muslims with the right to be in the US should be treated on an individual basis, ordinary decent ones left alone those involved in Islamic extremism should be prosecuted and or deported when possible.

    Important bit in bold.
    And yes, how do you determine who are the ordinary decent ones on an individual basis?

    Nah man, follow your argument to the logical conclusion. I did not infer anything, it's what your logic implies. Incidentally, what you wrote now is fine, but when you make an argument like "yea he is american but if his parents hadn't come", you change it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Trump asked someone from his team as to how he can legally implement a Muslim ban. So the intention of the ban was to ban muslims and this method seemed the best way to do it.

    Somehow he managed to get his halfwitted trump supporters to be satisfied with the ban and still try to keep it legal. Ofc a judge has ruled it to be illegal so yeah, he failed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    6 out of 7 countries on the ban list are active war zones. Which means they have unstable governments, poor infrastructure, and consequently poor documentation of their citizens, undermining any vetting process that might be employed during their immigration to the US.

    For the most part, we have no idea who the people coming over from these countries are. Sure, most may be good people fleeing a conflict, but until there is a reliable way to evaluate the background of these individuals, it's anyone's guess.

    That's what this ban is about. Temporarily limiting immigration from countries where it is difficult to assess citizens prior to granting them legal entry to the US, until measures have been implemented to do this.

    It has nothing to do with "Muslims". Out of the 10 countries with the highest Muslim populations in the world, only one is on this list.
    The ban is a temporary ban to review the situation (if you believe Donald Trump) NOT a ban to stop people coming in until there are systems in place in their countries to track them effectively and 'prove' to US authorities that they are not radicalised. The ban is not needed (at least temporarily) to review the situation as the US already has the most extensive vetting in the world for refugees. Therefore if the vetting is not good enough for reasons you have stated like poor records in their home countries, there should be an outright ban on all migration from these countries. However if this is the case Donald Trump needs to come out and say it, and then there needs to be a public debate and legislation passed to ban it, preferably with wide-ranging public support. We already have all the facts about how good/ bad vetting is so if it is as bad as you claim then there should be no temporary ban for 90 days, it should be permanent until the systems are in place to do effective vetting. This 90 day thing is just Donald playing politics.

    I am sympathetic to immigration restrictions, particularly from countries where a lot of people have been radicalised. Having said that your argument does not add up. I am in the weird position where I and leaning towards agreeing with outright banning all migration from the countries mentioned however I think that your argument is not very strong.

    The US already has a form of extreme vetting for all refugees therefore the US as the best idea possible about what people from these countries are like who are entering the country as refugees. There is nothing that can really be done to extend vetting of refugees to make it more effective. The vetting process is extensive, and extremely long and essentially if the vetting process is not good enough as it is then it probably will never be any better so there should be no temporary ban but an outright full ban on all immigration from those countries.

    My personal view is that vetting cannot get any better than it currently is, and if due to poor legal systems/ records in these countries vetting is not good enough then there should be a debate about a permanent enforcement of these restrictions (i.e. a permanent ban) and this temporary ban stuff while the situation is reviewed is completely irrelevant and misleading. It is President Trumplaying politics with a very important issue. If Donald Trump truly believes that vetting in its current form does not work, he should explain it to the public and then completely ban immigration from these countries with supporting legislation, a proper public debate and hopefully if he is right widespread public support. More extreme vetting simply will not bring any gains as it is already as comprehensive as it can possibly be, given the limitations of the countries the people come from.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    And yes, how do you determine who are the ordinary decent ones on an individual basis?

    Nah man, follow your argument to the logical conclusion. I did not infer anything, it's what your logic implies. Incidentally, what you wrote now is fine, but when you make an argument like "yea he is american but if his parents hadn't come", you change it.
    And yes, how do you determine who are the ordinary decent ones on an individual basis?

    Seriously, you do not understand how law enforcement works?

    If law enforcement suspect you of committing a crime they investigate you.

    if you're not suspected of a crime they tend to leave you alone.

    Standard procedure all over the developed world.

    You deny that its a FACT that if Mateens parents had not been allowed to enter the US, he would not have had the opportunity to slaughter the patrons of Pulse nightclub?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Question never asked.

    Is Muslim immigration into the USA vital for the future wellbeing and prosperity of the US?

    Answer, an emphatic NO.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    And yes, how do you determine who are the ordinary decent ones on an individual basis?

    Seriously, you do not understand how law enforcement works?

    If law enforcement suspect you of committing a crime they investigate you.

    if you're not suspected of a crime they tend to leave you alone.

    Standard procedure all over the developed world.

    You deny that its a FACT that if Mateens parents had not been allowed to enter the US, he would not have had the opportunity to slaughter the patrons of Pulse nightclub?
    But you are making a very specific point here. "Muslims with the right to be in the US should be treated on an individual basis, ordinary decent ones left alone those involved in Islamic extremism should be prosecuted and or deported when possible."

    How are you going to have a look at every single Muslim and decide "he is ordinary"? I mean otherwise what you are suggesting is ironically what you just said: "Standard procedure all over the developed world." So either you are saying nothing, and everything continues as it already is (standard procedure), or you are trying to make some sort of point in which case I ask you again, how would you go about on an individual basis?

    Yes. How do you know he could not have gotten to the US anyway? Interesting to see what you consider "FACT".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Question never asked.

    Is Muslim immigration into the USA vital for the future wellbeing and prosperity of the US?

    Answer, an emphatic NO.
    But do you know what would be vital? Deporting every single white kid that goes to buy a gun and then shoots people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But you are making a very specific point here. "Muslims with the right to be in the US should be treated on an individual basis, ordinary decent ones left alone those involved in Islamic extremism should be prosecuted and or deported when possible."

    How are you going to have a look at every single Muslim and decide "he is ordinary"? I mean otherwise what you are suggesting is ironically what you just said: "Standard procedure all over the developed world." So either you are saying nothing, and everything continues as it already is (standard procedure), or you are trying to make some sort of point in which case I ask you again, how would you go about on an individual basis?

    Yes. How do you know he could not have gotten to the US anyway? Interesting to see what you consider "FACT".
    Holy crap!

    Muslims should be treated on an individual basis, just like every other US citizen.

    Come on its not that complicated.

    Sorry but the "no point doing that, people will find ways to get round it" argument is not any kind of argument at all.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Holy crap!

    Muslims should be treated on an individual basis, just like every other US citizen.

    Come on its not that complicated.

    Sorry but the "no point doing that, people will find ways to get round it" argument is not any kind of argument at all.
    And they are. So what point are you trying to make here?

    And no, you asked a very specific question, and the answer is that no, it is not a fact. Do you deny that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But do you know what would be vital? Deporting every single white kid that goes to buy a gun and then shoots people.
    Interesting concept.......not really, standard SJW BS.

    A couple of things:

    Where exactly would you deport US born citizens to, of whatever colour?

    If you're so concerned about the murder rate in the US surely you should of suggested deporting the black kids that grow up to commit 50% of murders in the US while only constituting 13% of the US population.

    Using your logic, we must assume that you consider African Americans a bigger threat to the citizens of the US than Islamic terror.

    You some kind of white supremacist?
 
 
 
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: February 9, 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.