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

Do you support Donald Trump's anti-terror immigration ban? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with Trump's ban on immigration from 7 Muslim countries?
    Yes
    82
    22.84%
    No
    277
    77.16%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Do you support the executive order that prevents immigration to the US from 7 nations?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    With a bit of refinement.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I support the idea that he'd like the country to be at less risk of terrorism.
    I don't support the way he's gone about it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes.

    The UK should follow his example.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    This is Trump's first major policy call and he has totally failed. He has politicians - democrats and republicans coming out against him. He has 16 state attorney generals explaining that his actions are unconstitutional. He's had judges up and down the country finding against him.

    Major airports have protestors camped outside. In one airport, congressional representatives have attended to ensure compliance with court orders against Trump's EO.

    Poorly executed. Within a week, Trump has paid scant regard to the constitution he promised to uphold. Within a week, everyone who said he'd be a terrible president has been shown to be right.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    No.

    This is Trump's first major policy call and he has totally failed. He has politicians - democrats and republicans coming out against him. He has 16 state attorney generals explaining that his actions are unconstitutional. He's had judges up and down the country finding against him.

    Major airports have protestors camped outside. In one airport, congressional representatives have attended to ensure compliance with court orders against Trump's EO.

    Poorly executed. Within a week, Trump has paid scant regard to the constitution he promised to uphold. Within a week, everyone who said he'd be a terrible president has been shown to be right.
    If he's paid scant regard to the constitution you should be able to conclusively and irrefutably argue how it is unconstitutional. I'll wait.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If he's paid scant regard to the constitution you should be able to conclusively and irrefutably argue how it is unconstitutional. I'll wait.
    The big sticking point will be the first amendment. The EO favours minority religions which would seem to be contrary to the what the first amendment sets out. You then also have the due process protections mentioned in the constitution which seem to have been breached.

    It isn't just on immigration policy that Trump stands accused of acting unconstitutionally. A lawsuit has been filed concerning him being in breach of the emoluments clause - which concerns Trump's refusal to step back from his business.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    If you arent American then why does it matter, unless you are affected. He can do what he likes.

    Do I think its a smart idea in its current format and will it be effective? No and no. Bonkers plan poorly conceived and executed.
    It is good for Trump though because he is showing to the people who voted him in he is doing something, even if in real terms its more show than substance and fails if its atempt is to effectively lower the terrorist risk imo.

    Will be interesting to see what the history books say, plus in the meantime we all get updates on Twitter. More sparks to fly if he cancels the Iran nuke deal and starts a trade war with China. I hope he stands firm on Cina claiming international waters for itself by building its artificial Islands.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    NO.

    If someone has a criminal record, he won't be able to get a VISA to visit or migrate to the US.

    That is a reasonable measure to prevent importing criminals.

    To ban someone from entering the country merely because he/she happened to be born in a specific country with Islam as its official religion (without taking anything else into account about him/her individually) is pure bigotry. People have rights whether or not Trump and his cavalcade of cartoonish politicians recognise them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Many countries, do truly need some sort of protection - but this ban is just plain stupid. I don't even think Trump looked at the actual countries statistically with the highest percentage of terrorists, not even with the highest Muslim population. (Not saying that's the right way to do it but it makes sense to me.)
    Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. What about Indonesia? India? Pakistan? Looks like he just blindly plucked names out of a hat - badly excecuted.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. Yes I jolly well do. The Western world needs to be protected, and it makes total sense to block people from dangerous countries from entering.

    You bleeding heart lefties can moan and groan all you want, but mark my words you will be thankful for this ban once the number of terrorist attacks starts going down.

    Safety > feelings, 100%.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    yes, but with a emphatic qualification:
    people from muslim countries come from very different cultures
    those culture are not only immoral by virtue of their values and norms, but also the fact that they are more adhering to violent politics
    we've seen this so much, i.e. 9/11, 7/7, the bostom bombing, the gay club shooting, the murder of cartoonists in denmark and paris (the latter obviously being je suis charle), the truck killings in france and germany, and honestly far too many to recall off of the top of my head
    it is, therefore, a reasonable fusion of one's immigration policy and national security approach to limit certain countries from entry.
    if it will to some imaginable extent decrease the chances of terrorism and the monoculture of islamic violence within that state, there is no moral problem because it is not suggesting that ALL muslims are terrorists. but that is not to say that generally prohibiting muslims from america isn't going to have a generally positive effect on the norms and values within the american nation. this is not an opinion. muslims massively, for example, are prejudiced against homosexuals in a manner that is from a different civilisation. it is like comparing the 21st century to the 1st century. it is literally as black and white as that.

    however, I don't think it should be absolute
    if there are, let's say, people only coming to study whereby they will leave immediately after, then I think that should be acceptable

    people seem to think that this is "racist"
    is japan "racist" for essentially not allowing muslim immigration?
    I never heard of that before? why is it only america, a white country, that is being called this?
    it's almost as if people see white "racist" (so called) because white countries are, what, more civilised than non-white countires and, hence, having a higher requirement of scrutiny based on this? that's kind of a racist approach itself because non-white countries are belittled.
    this is all a part of the new "progressive" ideology that revolves around a identity caste system whereby oppression is a virtue and if you are white, male and straight, you are oppressive and hence not virtuous. only racial minorities, religious minorities and women can be "virtuous" via imaginary (mostly) oppression, and it is a hierarchy - white women are inferior to black women, for instance, in that pecking order.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    NO.

    If someone has a criminal record, he won't be able to get a VISA to visit or migrate to the US.

    That is a reasonable measure to prevent importing criminals.

    To ban someone from entering the country merely because he/she happened to be born in a specific country with Islam as its official religion (without taking anything else into account about him/her individually) is pure bigotry. People have rights whether or not Trump and his cavalcade of cartoonish politicians recognise them.
    The problem with talking about criminal records is it relies on three things:
    1) They have already committed crimes
    2) They have been caught for said crimes
    3) They have then been found guilty
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM&t=319s

    lots of valid points
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I just don't agree with it. Yes I adhere to Islam and it's my religion, and I have Iraqi origins. But why should somebody such as Trump, with absolutely no political background, be able to ban several nations based on his assumptions that there are only Muslim terrorists (or Islamist Terrorists) in the world?

    Even the FBI database says that from 1980-2005, only 6% of attacks in the USA were carried out by 'Muslims'. I place that in quotation marks for the sole purpose that in Islam, it clearly states the following:

    "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors."



    The fact is that it was a poorly constructed decision, and has prevented many Muslims with those origins from being able to develop their full potential in their lifetime.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's too much or not enough.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely.

    Also keep in mind that contrary to the ******** SJWs are trying to spread, the countries were chosen by Obama's administration, not Trump's business interests.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Love him (no homo). I hope he continues to free himself of the Prison Planet and Alex Jones stigma.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, 6 of those 7 countries are ACTIVE WARZONES.
    When ISIS finally attack Britain, you lefties will realise your ignorance.
 
 
 
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 2, 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.