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%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Yes.

    The UK should follow his example.
    why's that? Personally I think it's an insane measure to stop terrorism and I fear a great deal he's just a pawn of the people he elected to his cabinet or is in some other way going to personally profit from this. My fear is founded in the fact that Trump's business dealings seem to be quite shady considering the dossier sent to the FBI, the fact that he STILL hasn't released his taxes, the fact that he gave his children control of his company/companies (i don't know how many businesses he owns) as well as the fact that very few major terrorist attacks were committed by nationals of any of the countries from which movement has been banned.

    I'm asking why to try and diversify my viewpoint. If you have a better understanding of the situation than I do then I want to know what you do.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epoddoulc)

    Now I'm not saying that all Moslems are terrorists but, most if not ALL terrorists are Moslem.
    Correction: most attacks labelled as "terrorism". Just because you don't call white terrorists terrorists, doesn't mean they aren't.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Home grown white terrorists........

    Examples?
    Check out any of the numerous shootings that happen. The most recent famous one probably Dylan Roof. As I said in the post above, just because you don't call them "terrorists" (because terrorists can only be brown men with beards from the ME), doesn't mean they are not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I don't support the way he's gone about it.
    To say the least. :rolleyes:

    It's the fact that he's made it specifically about Muslims - Christians from those countries are apparently allowed to enter at will. That may make some kind of sense to the more extreme right wing people, but in the real world all it does is inflame Muslim opinion and make it still easier for the Jihadists to recruit. It boosts the chances of terror attacks in the long term and it also means that the US is doing something it has never done before - publicly discriminated on the basis of religion. That is an appalling thing for a country with the history the US has to do and it will lead to vast amounts of internal trouble and strife in the nation in the future.

    What we are seeing here, far from it being a necessary security measure, is the ascendancy of the extremist Christian fundamentalist viewpoint over government policy. It is a baffling development and a slide backwards into medievalism and hatred.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    what we are seeing is...the ascendancy of the extremist Christian fundamentalist viewpoint
    what has this got to do with Christian fundamentalism? I wouldn't ask except that what's being discussed is the broad brush associating of religious belief with extremist political views.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    To say the least. :rolleyes:

    It's the fact that he's made it specifically about Muslims - Christians from those countries are apparently allowed to enter at will. .
    This is deliberately misleading. The exception is to persecuted religions.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Trump agenda: "Asked about State Department criticism of the immigration ban, the White House Spokesman Sean Spicer said if "these career bureaucrats" had a problem with it, "they should either get with the programme or they can go.""

    "Get with the programme" is a favorite of Trump. After his election victory he talked about a split country, a divided country and how it must come together, unite. What he understands by that is people should unilaterally "just accept" he is president and let him do everything he wants, preferably mindlessly cheering him on like they do Putin, Erdogan, or Kim Jong-un.

    He thinks he may be helping America, but he is not, in fact I would say he is harming it a lot more. Wouldn't be surprised if it already has a worse reputation than under Bush.
    This is the problem with political appointees in the civil service: they serve the President and not THE president. If they're unwilling to do their job under a new administration they should hand in their resignation and either go back to their private sector job or go back to working for the party of the previous administration.

    If they are unwilling to do their job they should not still be there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    This is deliberately misleading. The exception is to persecuted religions.
    Even if that's the real reason (and there's good reason to be sceptical about the sincerity of any of their public statements given the involvement of people like Bannon and their commitment to a policy of public lies), it still doesn't bode well for the future, as it comes across as a deliberate religion-oriented public discrimination.

    I suspect it's illegal but with Trump and the new Senate stacking the courts, it can only be a matter of time now before the religious right in America takes over and we have a new post-enlightenment and a return to the horrors of the inquisition, Church Thought Police and a new gestapo of brainless Christianoids dictating global agendas. The creep began a while back with their campaigns to de-science American education. Under Tony Blair's enthusiastic co-operation, they even tried to get that into our schools.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see the need for USA to protect themselves about 'Muslim terrorists'. Their biggest terror issue is lack of gun control, not ISIS.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This is the problem with political appointees in the civil service: they serve the President and not THE president. If they're unwilling to do their job under a new administration they should hand in their resignation and either go back to their private sector job or go back to working for the party of the previous administration.

    If they are unwilling to do their job they should not still be there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They serve the country.

    Only a dictator tells all people to get with him or leave.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    They serve the country.

    Only a dictator tells all people to get with him or leave.
    Which is why appointees use the phrase "I serve at the pleasure of the president"?

    AND he's doing what he was elected to do, so it isn't even like he has no mandate to do it without tearing up Article II Section I of the constitution as amended by the 12th, 22nd and 23rd amendments

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Even if that's the real reason (and there's good reason to be sceptical about the sincerity of any of their public statements given the involvement of people like Bannon and their commitment to a policy of public lies), it still doesn't bode well for the future, as it comes across as a deliberate religion-oriented public discrimination.
    .
    So we shouldn't be doing our best to protect minorities from persecution?

    Do you believe we should be allowing any refugees in at all?

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I suspect it's illegal but with Trump and the new Senate stacking the courts, it can only be a matter of time now before the religious right in America takes over and we have a new post-enlightenment and a return to the horrors of the inquisition, Church Thought Police and a new gestapo of brainless Christianoids dictating global agendas. The creep began a while back with their campaigns to de-science American education. Under Tony Blair's enthusiastic co-operation, they even tried to get that into our schools.
    That's quite a leap you've made there.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which is why appointees use the phrase "I serve at the pleasure of the president"?

    AND he's doing what he was elected to do, so it isn't even like he has no mandate to do it without tearing up Article II Section I of the constitution as amended by the 12th, 22nd and 23rd amendments

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They serve the country. They work for him.

    This isn't the first time a president from a new party comes in. Are you telling me this is no extraordinary reaction, that it is always this extreme? If so, I stand corrected.
    • Online

      20
      Yes.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yudothis)
      Correction: most attacks labelled as "terrorism". Just because you don't call white terrorists terrorists, doesn't mean they aren't.
      Please take a look at this website; http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
      Offline

      9
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by epoddoulc)
      Why? I love my country so I wear the flag with pride. What's your problem? Would you have the same response to someone with a Pakistan flag or Islam symbol as their DP? Course you wouldn't, one rule for us and another for them.
      Stop making using language that aims to divide us, saying stuff like "one rule for us, another for them" only shows you value those who are Muslim for example as something different to you, and hence are bad or evil. smh

      And i didnt say you could't be patriotic but don't hate me when i get the image of a bald aging white geezer with semi-racist views down the boozer when i see anyone who's proud of the union jack
      Online

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by epoddoulc)
      Please take a look at this website; http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
      That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

      Ironically, you can search my post history and find a ton of posts heavily criticizing Islam.

      Unlike you however, I am able still a reasonable person capable of rational thinking and don't succumb to fear and hatred.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by BusyStarGazing)
      Stop making using language that aims to divide us, saying stuff like "one rule for us, another for them" only shows you value those who are Muslim for example as something different to you, and hence are bad or evil. smh

      And i didnt say you could't be patriotic but don't hate me when i get the image of a bald aging white geezer with semi-racist views down the boozer when i see anyone who's proud of the union jack
      You're an absolute moron. Do you realise how hypocritical you are? Just re-read your post and realise how much of a dumbass you've made yourself out to be.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yudothis)
      That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

      Ironically, you can search my post history and find a ton of posts heavily criticizing Islam.

      Unlike you however, I am able still a reasonable person capable of rational thinking and don't succumb to fear and hatred.
      Islam is a problem, a violent and sadistic problem. If you can name me one ideology as dangerous as islam, I will admit defeat. Nearly every terrorist attack committed last year and this year was in the name of islam. Several quran verses propagate violence against non-muslims.

      That website I linked, take a look at it. It lists all the recent islamic terrorist attacks.
      Online

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by epoddoulc)
      Islam is a problem, a violent and sadistic problem. If you can name me one ideology as dangerous as islam, I will admit defeat. Nearly every terrorist attack committed last year and this year was in the name of islam. Several quran verses propagate violence against non-muslims.

      That website I linked, take a look at it. It lists all the recent islamic terrorist attacks.
      As I said, I fully agree, my favorite phrase is that it is an "archaic, barbaric ideology".

      But again, that does not mean that I consider a blanket bans on countries an appropriate measure. Yes we should not be tolerant of intolerance. But this is far from that.
     
     
     
    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
  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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.