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

Iranian PHD student banned from US despite having a house, job, dog and car Watch

    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustAGuyy)
    There has been a little over 150 people halted at the border. They are simply being asked to return to their country of origin. Calm down.
    721 now.

    Also:

    Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has just said "Some of the seven Muslim-majority countries affected by President Donald Trump's executive action on immigration will not likely be taken off the list any time soon"

    http://live.reuters.com/Event/Live_U...tics/666168391
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I thought only 50 people died from Islamic terrorism in the US in the year of 2016? And 5000 died from choking accidents, if I recall correctly. Surely, we must ban food.

    I don't understand how it is hard to see that banning more than a hundred million people from entering the borders of the US regardless of who they are would just legitimize terrorists in their and their recruits' minds. Especially because it goes against the constitution.

    Instead of banning millions of people, why not have SOME ACTUAL GUN CONTROL LAWS (and background checks) and a secret service agency that actually does its job.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    I thought only 50 people died from Islamic terrorism in the US in the year of 2016? And 5000 died from choking accidents, if I recall correctly. Surely, we must ban food.

    I don't understand how it is hard to see that banning more than a hundred million people from entering the borders of the US regardless of who they are would just legitimize terrorists in their and their recruits' minds. Especially because it goes against the constitution.

    Instead of banning millions of people, why not have SOME ACTUAL GUN CONTROL LAWS (and background checks) and a secret service agency that actually does its job.
    So, who was the last president to be assassinated? Last to be shot? I think if they managed to keep Obama alive for 8 years, especially the rhetoric of racism we get from the liberal left (and not so liberal left) nobody can say the Secret Service are failing to do their job.

    Oh, and "A well maintained militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So, who was the last president to be assassinated? Last to be shot? I think if they managed to keep Obama alive for 8 years, especially the rhetoric of racism we get from the liberal left (and not so liberal left) nobody can say the Secret Service are failing to do their job.

    Oh, and "A well maintained militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/watchdog...g-white-house/

    Besides, being good at keeping the head of state alive is very different from being capable in anything other than that. Also, 9/11. Apparently the US secret service can't do much more than spy on its own (and its allies') populations.

    Allowing people a right to arms is very different from allowing them completely free buying and selling of semi automatic (non-burst) rifles, even to those who are mentally ill and those with serious documented violent criminal pasts.

    Or those on the terror list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-guns-got-the/ (Even if it's the number of purchase attempts, the success rate is laughable; also, no background checks whatsoever for gun shows)

    Can you honestly argue against that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with the idea of comparing the causes of deaths in America, whilst I strongly believe that stronger Gun laws have to be put in place as it's just shambles in the US, clearly evident in all the shootings that occur on a regular basis.

    Yes, the US has to find a solution to deal with terrorism, but banning 7 muslim countries is not the answer and is exactly what the radical religious groups like ISIS want. Whats even more pathetic about this ban is that all the countries included have never been home to a terrorist. If Donald Trump, really wanted to do something about terrorism he should have banned SAUDI, UAE, PAKISTAN, etc. whilst I am still against banning whole countries as the acts of a minority shouldn't affect a whole nation. BUT IF A TEMPORARY BAN WAS TO BE PLACED IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO SAUDI, UAE, PAKISTAN, EGYPT WHICH HAVE BEEN HOME TO TERRORIST OF 911 or the SAN BERNARDINO ATTACK.

    This has been the 4th time I have had to repeat this in this thread, and whats interesting is that none of the Trump supporters have been able to reply to this fact. Just goes to show how weak their foundation of argument is.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Even Fox News Polls are showing strongly against the EO in both the restrictions and their implementation:

    Name:  Screen Shot 2017-02-01 at 11.10.36.jpg
Views: 11
Size:  113.9 KB

    http://nation.foxnews.com/poll/index.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FolloUrDreams)
    No, this is just the beginning of Trump's plan. He's aiming for a total and permanent ban of all Muslims. Obviously he had to start small with this.

    ...And I agree. There's too many of them - let them stay in their own part of the world.
    ffs iranians are very ****ing secular it is the government that are not secular...people commenting on **** they just don't know about. I get it not many people have been to Iran but that surely means that not many people can comment about Iran!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/watchdog...g-white-house/

    Besides, being good at keeping the head of state alive is very different from being capable in anything other than that. Also, 9/11. Apparently the US secret service can't do much more than spy on its own (and its allies') populations.

    Allowing people a right to arms is very different from allowing them completely free buying and selling of semi automatic (non-burst) rifles, even to those who are mentally ill and those with serious documented violent criminal pasts.

    Or those on the terror list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-guns-got-the/ (Even if it's the number of purchase attempts, the success rate is laughable; also, no background checks whatsoever for gun shows)

    Can you honestly argue against that?
    You seem to be confusing government departments, the treasury (Secret Service) only deals with protection details, the spying and dealing with terrorism is variably the CIA, FBI, DHS, and NSA depending on where it is and what's being done. No security service is going to be perfect, there will always be things that slip through, that does not mean they are failing. If you honestly think there have not been any major attacks against the US planned since 9/11 you're mental.

    You might also want to look into the various provisions relating to gun control and particularly how it's been tightened over time, for instance before 1963 you could mail order weapons without a background check, then somebody landed a head shot with one followed 128 minutes later by LBJ being sworn in as President on airforce one.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You seem to be confusing government departments, the treasury (Secret Service) only deals with protection details, the spying and dealing with terrorism is variably the CIA, FBI, DHS, and NSA depending on where it is and what's being done. No security service is going to be perfect, there will always be things that slip through, that does not mean they are failing. If you honestly think there have not been any major attacks against the US planned since 9/11 you're mental.

    You might also want to look into the various provisions relating to gun control and particularly how it's been tightened over time, for instance before 1963 you could mail order weapons without a background check, then somebody landed a head shot with one followed 128 minutes later by LBJ being sworn in as President on airforce one.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You seem confused yourself. The secret service is no longer under the Treasury... it hasn't been since 2003. Besides, you're only latching onto denominations here. What most people understand from the word 'secret service' would be all the organizations you mentioned.

    Entire planes 'slipping through' (a couple buildings, no less) is quite something, but of course you would try to dismiss that.

    I haven't said there was no legislation being tightened over time. Besides, why would you latch onto a minor form of legislation that should have been in place decades earlier. You're only proving the point of gun regulation being pitifully implemented in the US for a long time now.

    I don't see what you're trying to prove, other than derailing the subject of gun control laws being ineffective and illogical. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of a populace that has a right to arms. Just not every terrorist, violent criminal and mentally ill person in the country.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    You seem confused yourself. The secret service is no longer under the Treasury... it hasn't been since 2003. Besides, you're only latching onto denominations here. What most people understand from the word 'secret service' would be all the organizations you mentioned.

    Entire planes 'slipping through' (a couple buildings, no less) is quite something, but of course you would try to dismiss that.

    I haven't said there was no legislation being tightened over time. Besides, why would you latch onto a minor form of legislation that should have been in place decades earlier. You're only proving the point of gun regulation being pitifully implemented in the US for a long time now.

    I don't see what you're trying to prove, other than derailing the subject of gun control laws being ineffective and illogical. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of a populace that has a right to arms. Just not every terrorist, violent criminal and mentally ill person in the country.
    I would expect most people would put the work of the CIA, NSA etc under the umbrella of one or more of the CIA, NSA, and FBI and leave the Secret Service out of it entirely, and tell me again how many major attacks there have been on the US, in particular from Islamists, since the focus was diverted in that direction after 9/11, but then again I expect it was obvious and they should have been looking at them decades earlier, right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone know how the dog is doing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would expect most people would put the work of the CIA, NSA etc under the umbrella of one or more of the CIA, NSA, and FBI and leave the Secret Service out of it entirely, and tell me again how many major attacks there have been on the US, in particular from Islamists, since the focus was diverted in that direction after 9/11, but then again I expect it was obvious and they should have been looking at them decades earlier, right?
    Your kind sure has a knack for ignoring arguments and issues and trying to redirect attention...

    It's funny how that argument of yours contravenes with your opinion that Islamic attacks are a serious threat, and that people from countries with few links to terrorism in the US should be banned outright, regardless. Even those who have had entire livelihoods in the US for a long while already.

    Just to make it clear, 0 people died in the US from terrorists coming from the seven banned countries. You ideological people sure are quite the case study
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    Your kind sure has a knack for ignoring arguments and issues and trying to redirect attention...

    It's funny how that argument of yours contravenes with your opinion that Islamic attacks are a serious threat, and that people from countries with few links to terrorism in the US should be banned outright, regardless. Even those who have had entire livelihoods in the US for a long while already.

    Just to make it clear, 0 people died in the US from terrorists coming from the seven banned countries. You ideological people sure are quite the case study
    Can you remind me of which president the legislation establishing the list was passed under? And while we're at it what ideology drove the 9/11 attackers, or the Bastille day attacker? Who the pulse nightclub shooter pledged allegiance to? San Bernardino motive? How about 7/7 and 21/7? Or what the most deadly terrorist groups have in common?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can you remind me of which president the legislation establishing the list was passed under? And while we're at it what ideology drove the 9/11 attackers, or the Bastille day attacker? Who the pulse nightclub shooter pledged allegiance to? San Bernardino motive? How about 7/7 and 21/7? Or what the most deadly terrorist groups have in common?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So remind *me* again, banning people from countries that have sourced the fewest terrorists, and caused ZERO deaths in the US, will help how, other than help in radicalizing people by providing proof of the imbecility of US governance?

    I'm in no way a fan of Abrahamic religions, however this policy is either a political maneuver, or plain imbecility, and it can't be the latter. If you look at the policy through the sole lens of practicality and efficacy, not even morals (of which there are many qualms), and think it positive (nevermind the efficiency), you are just not the very logical sort.

    Or well, you might have a brilliant argument for it, so please do go ahead. I'm always happy to change my mind given proper argumentation and logic..
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    So remind *me* again, banning people from countries that have sourced the fewest terrorists, and caused ZERO deaths in the US, will help how, other than help in radicalizing people by providing proof of the imbecility of US governance?

    I'm in no way a fan of Abrahamic religions, however this policy is either a political maneuver, or plain imbecility, and it can't be the latter. If you look at the policy through the sole lens of practicality and efficacy, not even morals (of which there are many qualms), and think it positive (nevermind the efficiency), you are just not the very logical sort.

    Or well, you might have a brilliant argument for it, so please do go ahead. I'm always happy to change my mind given proper argumentation and logic..
    If you're intending to operate within the confines of preexisting legislation, how far do you stray from it? You don't. A list is to be created recommending other states to receive the same treatment, but funnily enough that hasn't been created yet, THAT is the list that needs scrutinising.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Even Fox News Polls are showing strongly against the EO in both the restrictions and their implementation:

    http://nation.foxnews.com/poll/index.html
    how can they be reconciled with polls that contradict them (see below)?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...n-oppose-poll/
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      how can they be reconciled with polls that contradict them (see below)?

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...n-oppose-poll/
      Because anyone can vote on the former polls, its not really a professional poll.
      Online

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Mathemagicien)
      Because anyone can vote on the former polls, its not really a professional poll.
      You would have thought that a FOX News poll, whose voters comprise readers of FOX News, would be more pro this policy than a general poll ostensibly representative of society as a whole Is my point
      • Offline

        20
        (Original post by Palmyra)
        You would have thought that a FOX News poll, whose voters comprise readers of FOX News, would be more pro this policy than a general poll ostensibly representative of society as a whole Is my point
        There are many possible reasons. Wider online audience. Poll being linked to by other (more left-wing) media outlets or sites (e.g. by being linked to here, we have had a minor impact on it too, and we are more left-wing than the average Fox reader). Vote manipulation. Its hard to trust these kinds of online polls.
        • Section Leader
        • Clearing and Applications Advisor
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Palmyra)
        You would have thought that a FOX News poll, whose voters comprise readers of FOX News, would be more pro this policy than a general poll ostensibly representative of society as a whole Is my point
        (Original post by Mathemagicien)
        There are many possible reasons. Wider online audience. Poll being linked to by other (more left-wing) media outlets or sites (e.g. by being linked to here, we have had a minor impact on it too, and we are more left-wing than the average Fox reader). Vote manipulation. Its hard to trust these kinds of online polls.
        Probably this. It's very amusing. But 65,000 votes - I doubt many are from TSR
       
       
       
    • 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.