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

President Trump's travel bans are objectionable, but can we please calm down? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, let me say, I am unequivocally opposed to President Trump's travel restrictions against citizens from 7 Muslim majority nations. They are highly impractical, too one size fits all, ignorant of the fact that the real danger to American national security is home-grown (enhanced by very loose access to firearms), never even bothered to ban the countries which produced terrorists that did harm to the US (Saudi Arabia+UAE) and quite frankly nothing more of a symbolic strongman move aimed at trying to send a message of toughness. Sure, more vetting is always good, but it doesn't need to be accompanied by a confusion causing ban which has left the White House sending mixed messages about green-card holders and dual nationality citizens.

    However

    The level of frenzied hysteria in response to this ban has been quite simply astonishing and unnecessary. Firstly, and thank heavens for it, the travel restrictions are only temporary. Secondly, this shouldn't come as a major surprise to us. Trump spoke about doing things like this during his campaign, and arguably this ban doesn't come close to fulfilling his pledge to "shut down Muslims entering the United States". These are just 7 Muslim majority countries, a combined population of 211 million out of 1.6+ billion Muslims. So therefore we cannot say Trump's motivation was prejudiced or xenophobic, as flawed as it is from a national security standpoint, it was an act by a President genuinely concerned about overseas terrorists infiltrating the US. Third, Trump hasn't violated anybody's human rights or bullied smaller nations, he's simply exercised the power of a nation state to restrict travel against citizens of other countries. Call it democracy in action, he won and now he's implementing his agenda.

    What I've noticed is that the left has lost their ability to make reasoned, rational and coherent criticisms of Trump. These massive protests which idiotically and uniformly chant "fascist" "racist" etc seem to indicate virtue signalling rather than opposition of substance. I mean come on, over a million signing a petition to rescind his invitation to the UK? We've rolled out the red carpet for far worse autocrats like Xi Jinping and royal families in the Gulf and there was no collective leftist outrage then. Be consistent.

    Trump is going to do things which we will disagree with during his tenure as President. We have to respect the fact that he wasn't plucked out of thin air and put in charge, but rather he passed a democratic process. America's not a banana republic. I do hope President Trump sees the error of his ways on this, but you leftists need to chill with the hysteria. Constructive criticism is the best form of criticism.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Doctors and lawyers' sons and daughters protesting for he sake of liberalism I hope they get soaked with their "refugees welcome" banners where the **** did they come from? And also, where do we draw the line?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Obama arbitrarily banned Syrian refugees for 6 months and yet no protests.... Oh I forgot... He can't be racist!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Calm down? People are getting killed and are going to get killed because of this. I agree that a lot of the reactions have been over the top but you can tell the difference between people like yourself who are looking down on people through rose-tinted spectacles, whilst carrying an air of privilege, and people who aren't deluded. There are a lot of people protesting because they are following the crowd, but there are also so many people whose lives are going to be turned upside down.

    Things aren't right. They might sort themselves out but I doubt it. Bad times are coming.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MRNO)
    Obama arbitrarily banned Syrian refugees for 6 months and yet no protests.... Oh I forgot... He can't be racist!
    is syrian a race??
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MRNO)
    Obama arbitrarily banned Syrian refugees for 6 months and yet no protests.... Oh I forgot... He can't be racist!
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/...migration-ban/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Technically being against Syrians as a whole isn't really racist, but the original idea of what racism is has been simplified and inclusive of many things
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Building up a frenzy is the first step for people to make their representatives know that his actions, although within his powers are appalling. This will force their representatives (both home and abroad) to rethink their support and relationship for him. The effects are already clear: although his senate nominations will go through, all his decision making will be slowed down, obstructed and constitutionally challenged at each step. You can already see the effects, as even Republicans are having to think twice about their decisions.
    It will also force world leaders to reconfigure their relationship with him. Theresa May is a prime example. The UK sees him in a completely unfavourable light preventing May's diplomatic options. Any step forward towards a better relationship is met with a loud backlash demanding his condemnation.

    Better late than never that the current POTUS learn the meaning of duty and service.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Calm down? People are getting killed and are going to get killed because of this. I agree that a lot of the reactions have been over the top but you can tell the difference between people like yourself who are looking down on people through rose-tinted spectacles, whilst carrying an air of privilege, and people who aren't deluded. There are a lot of people protesting because they are following the crowd, but there are also so many people whose lives are going to be turned upside down.

    Things aren't right. They might sort themselves out but I doubt it. Bad times are coming.
    What are you talking about? It's a travel ban not a death warrant. I'm not looking at this through "rose-tinted" spectacles, I'm simply making proportionate criticisms. This is a flawed policy which will not accomplish its stated aim of preventing terrorist infiltration, and I acknowledged that it's confusion causing. That said, the point can be made coherently as opposition groups always do with any other democratically elected government. The policy is wrong but stop making it out to be apocalyptic. Hysterical attitudes like yours is the biggest recruitment tool to Trump for gaining more and more supporters who would otherwise see this as illogical.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Well said OP, at least some people on this earth still have common sense.

    The most major part of democracy is the freedom to criticise, and showing justified discontent at this policy is part of the democratic process. But at the same time, he was democratically elected with a mandate to do this, so it should hardly come as a surprise. And of course presidents should have the power to ban foreign nationals, it's been done before and no one was in a frenzy about it then. It's only because it's Trump who has instigated it that people are getting riled up about it. And in regards to the petition calling for him to be banned from the UK, don't be absurd. We don't have to like him, we just need to work with him. It's called political pragmatism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StephenWond3rboy)
    Building up a frenzy is the first step for people to make their representatives know that his actions, although within his powers are appalling. This will force their representatives (both home and abroad) to rethink their support and relationship for him. The effects are already clear: although his senate nominations will go through, all his decision making will be slowed down, obstructed and constitutionally challenged at each step. You can already see the effects, as even Republicans are having to think twice about their decisions.
    It will also force world leaders to reconfigure their relationship with him. Theresa May is a prime example. The UK sees him in a completely unfavourable light preventing May's diplomatic options. Any step forward towards a better relationship is met with a loud backlash demanding his condemnation.

    Better late than never that the current POTUS learn the meaning of duty and service.
    The action is flawed and certainly wrong but it's not even close to "appalling". This is what I'm talking about. Trump's ban, as shambolic and doomed to fail as it is, is a temporary travel ban. He isn't the first President to have exercised a travel ban on citizens from foreign countries. The ban is temporary too. The response is totally disproportionate. If you truly think this will temper his support, then you've completely misinterpreted why he won the election. Leftists, liberals and indeed moderates abandoned positions of logic and coherence in favour of collective panic. That confirmed to prospective Trump supporters that he was their man and deepened the support of those who already planned to vote for him. Now as with the UK viewing him in a completely unfavourable light, says who? I agree that a considerable number of Brits don't like him but you have no empirical evidence to make sweeping statements extending that to all Brits. Trump is President. Like it or not, he's not going away anytime soon. In the 2018 mid-term elections the Republicans will at least win the House thanks to gerrymandering. My point is simply that opposition to Trump has to conducted in a fashion which respects the democratic choice of the United States whilst not depleting substance. Mass hysteria does the complete opposite.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Calm down? People are getting killed and are going to get killed because of this. I agree that a lot of the reactions have been over the top but you can tell the difference between people like yourself who are looking down on people through rose-tinted spectacles, whilst carrying an air of privilege, and people who aren't deluded. There are a lot of people protesting because they are following the crowd, but there are also so many people whose lives are going to be turned upside down.

    Things aren't right. They might sort themselves out but I doubt it. Bad times are coming.
    Trump imposed a travel ban he didn't follow obamas lead and start launching bombs at people
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just saw this written by a Muslim which really made me stop and think:

    "Muslims ban Kafirs (Hindus, Jews, Christians) from entering Mecca: No problem

    Kafirs ban Muslims from the US: Yuuge Problem!"


    I don't like Trump either but some of the things that those opposed to him say about him are a bit over the top
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    The action is flawed and certainly wrong but it's not even close to "appalling". This is what I'm talking about. Trump's ban, as shambolic and doomed to fail as it is, is a temporary travel ban. He isn't the first President to have exercised a travel ban on citizens from foreign countries. The ban is temporary too. The response is totally disproportionate. If you truly think this will temper his support, then you've completely misinterpreted why he won the election. Leftists, liberals and indeed moderates abandoned positions of logic and coherence in favour of collective panic. That confirmed to prospective Trump supporters that he was their man and deepened the support of those who already planned to vote for him. Now as with the UK viewing him in a completely unfavourable light, says who? I agree that a considerable number of Brits don't like him but you have no empirical evidence to make sweeping statements extending that to all Brits. Trump is President. Like it or not, he's not going away anytime soon. In the 2018 mid-term elections the Republicans will at least win the House thanks to gerrymandering. My point is simply that opposition to Trump has to conducted in a fashion which respects the democratic choice of the United States whilst not depleting substance. Mass hysteria does the complete opposite.
    Ahh yes it is appalling.

    To this day not one middle-eastern refugee in America taken in by Refugee Act 1980 has killed a single American. That's a 37-year track record. That includes Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians, Afghanis etc. What does that imply?
    - It implies that the vetting process is already excellent and it lasts from anywhere between 16-22 months.
    - It means you are getting high-quality refugees.
    - It means, you are in no way under threat of having a security crisis like Europe.

    Despite this fact, he has decided to prevent entry of these people and save lives. Which at some level, America not just has a moral responsibility for, but culpability for as well. 3 months is a blink of an eye for you, but when Syria alone sees at an average of 2 Bataclan massacres a day, 3 months has major ramifications.

    And I haven't even touched the green card/ citizens/ students initially prevented entry. Who have been vetted ad-infinitum to earn those privileges.

    I wish I lacked your context and shrugged this off as just another travel ban, just another exercise of power.

    Edit: And don't come up with some silly retort that Obama did the same and that makes this a-okay. It wasn't then when it was only aimed at Iraq, it's definitely not now when it's scope and discrimination has been expanded.
    ======

    As far as his support goes, it does not need to be tempered at all. He lost the popular vote. All that is needed for the next election is to get sufficient people to take notice what kind of a person has been elected due to lack of voter turn-out and hopefully get enough people riled up. It's working. I see the biggest protest in American history an example of that.

    The opposition to Trump has to be at every level. You do not need a majority in the senate to slow down passage of bills. There's a reason why, despite having majority in both houses, Trump's nominations have been slowed down. These are exactly the strategies Republicans used when they were in minority and when they were majority.

    ======

    Alright. Not all citizens of UK see him unfavorably. But I would say majority do. The London marches , the large petitions against state visits are proof.. but if that's not enough, I am willing to a make friendly wager that the protest crowd that turns up on his state visit will be one of THE biggest UK has ever seen.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    you really are blind and believe any crap the left wing bias media tells you, here look at this:

    In November, Ohio State University student Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, posted the following message on Facebook:
    "America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially Muslim Ummah [community]. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that," the post said.

    Artran then plowed a car into a crowd of people at Ohio State before getting out of the car and attacking students with a butcher knife. A police officer was able to quickly get to the scene and kill Artran before he did more damage, but the attack resulted in 11 people going to the hospital.

    Law enforcement officials said that Artan was a Somali refugee, NBC reported in November.

    Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Artan was a Somali refugee who left his homeland with his family in 2007, lived in Pakistan, and then came to the United States in 2014 as a legal permanent resident.
    He lived briefly in a temporary shelter in Dallas before settling in Ohio, according to records maintained by Catholic Charities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "People overreacted, let's now all shut up" is what OP is saying.

    Sorry, not going to happen.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    or how about this site for more refugee terrorist examples

    https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56194
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomywomy)
    you really are blind and believe any crap the left wing bias media tells you, here look at this:

    In November, Ohio State University student Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, posted the following message on Facebook:
    "America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially Muslim Ummah [community]. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that," the post said.

    Artran then plowed a car into a crowd of people at Ohio State before getting out of the car and attacking students with a butcher knife. A police officer was able to quickly get to the scene and kill Artran before he did more damage, but the attack resulted in 11 people going to the hospital.

    Law enforcement officials said that Artan was a Somali refugee, NBC reported in November.

    Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Artan was a Somali refugee who left his homeland with his family in 2007, lived in Pakistan, and then came to the United States in 2014 as a legal permanent resident.
    He lived briefly in a temporary shelter in Dallas before settling in Ohio, according to records maintained by Catholic Charities.
    Either you dont know the extent of middle east or you can't locate Somalia on the map.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Firstly, and thank heavens for it, the travel restrictions are only temporary.
    This is purely speculative; it remains to be seen if Trump simply renews the EO at the end of the 90-day period.

    and arguably this ban doesn't come close to fulfilling his pledge to "shut down Muslims entering the United States". These are just 7 Muslim majority countries, a combined population of 211 million out of 1.6+ billion Muslims.
    "he's still evil but at least he hasn't yet been as evil as he said he would be" - this is your argument?

    So therefore we cannot say Trump's motivation was prejudiced or xenophobic, as flawed as it is from a national security standpoint, it was an act by a President genuinely concerned about overseas terrorists infiltrating the US.
    But as you yourself note, this EO is a complete disaster if its aim is to prevent terrorism (due to none of the 4 countries implicated in the 9/11 attacks (Saudi Arabia; UAE; Lebanon and Egypt) being included in the ban, and the real threat of terrorism being from homegrown terrorism (again largely fuelled by Saudi's funding of Wahhabism)). So if this wasn't to prevent terrorism, what explains it other than prejudice?

    Third, Trump hasn't violated anybody's human rights or bullied smaller nations, he's simply exercised the power of a nation state to restrict travel against citizens of other countries. Call it democracy in action, he won and now he's implementing his agenda.
    Not strictly true - the ban applies against those who legally reside in the U.S. with valid green cards or visas, including many on the path to citizenship and who have called the U.S. their (only) home for virtually the entirety of their life.

    We've rolled out the red carpet for far worse autocrats like Xi Jinping and royal families in the Gulf and there was no collective leftist outrage then. Be consistent.
    I generally agree, I am a vociferous opponent of our ties and white-washing of Saudi Arabia's crimes. However, surely you recognise the difference in being outraged by the policies of the leader of the free world and the leader of a theocratic monarchy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StephenWond3rboy)
    Ahh yes it is appalling.

    To this day not one middle-eastern refugee in America taken in by Refugee Act 1980 has killed a single American. That's a 37-year track record. That includes Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians, Afghanis etc. What does that imply?
    - It implies that the vetting process is already excellent and it lasts from anywhere between 16-22 months.
    - It means you are getting high-quality refugees.
    - It means, you are in no way under threat of having a security crisis like Europe.

    Despite this fact, he has decided to prevent entry of these people and save lives. Which at some level, America not just has a moral responsibility for, but culpability for as well. 3 months is a blink of an eye for you, but when Syria alone sees at an average of 2 Bataclan massacres a day, 3 months has major ramifications.

    And I haven't even touched the green card/ citizens/ students initially prevented entry. Who have been vetted ad-infinitum to earn those privileges.

    I wish I lacked your context and shrugged this off as just another travel ban, just another exercise of power.

    Edit: And don't come up with some silly retort that Obama did the same and that makes this a-okay. It wasn't then when it was only aimed at Iraq, it's definitely not now when it's scope and discrimination has been expanded.
    ======

    As far as his support goes, it does not need to be tempered at all. He lost the popular vote. All that is needed for the next election is to get sufficient people to take notice what kind of a person has been elected due to lack of voter turn-out and hopefully get enough people riled up. It's working. I see the biggest protest in American history an example of that.

    The opposition to Trump has to be at every level. You do not need a majority in the senate to slow down passage of bills. There's a reason why, despite having majority in both houses, Trump's nominations have been slowed down. These are exactly the strategies Republicans used when they were in minority and when they were majority.

    ======

    Alright. Not all citizens of UK see him unfavorably. But I would say majority do. The London marches , the large petitions against state visits are proof.. but if that's not enough, I am willing to a make friendly wager that the protest crowd that turns up on his state visit will be one of THE biggest UK has ever seen.
    Like I say, I think suspending the refugee programme and imposing a travel ban was wrong and precisely for some of the reasons you've articulated here. It's not a secret that toddlers with guns kill more Americans than foreign born jihadists. I can distinguish between what Obama did in 2011 which was grounded in a specific threat and on request by the FBI, and was more orderly and narrow and still allowed Iraqi refugees to enter (albeit slower). I never said I was in favour of this ban so please don't treat me like I am. I fully recognise all the numerous and good reasons against it.

    My objection, which I perhaps should have made clearer, is the way in which people have reacted to the ban (not necessarily the shows of public assembly and protest, but the language being used to describe it and Trump). I will have to disagree with you when you call it "appalling". As flawed and stupid as it is, I reiterate that this is a President of a sovereign state exercising his sovereign power to block the inflow of citizens from countries he doesn't want. While it's true that the Obama administration was culpable for exacerbating the Syrian Civil War by providing armaments to "moderate" rebels who haven't turned out to be very moderate at all, the Trump administration isn't and so if you wanted to assign moral culpability by President in charge then you really can't blame Trump for the ongoing mess in Syria, although that may change in the future. As with moral responsibility, yes, all civilised and rich nations have a moral responsibility to accept refugees, but how you achieve that moral responsibility is subjective. As I already said, I disagree with the suspension of taking in Syrian refugees, but during the ban on refugees Trump's stated he's still going to favour and accept refugees of "religious minority" (aka Christians). Which country ever fully meets its moral obligation with regards to refugees? There are 65 million people who are refugees cross the world, most of whom aren't being taken care of. If you want to be consistent and call out other nations for not taking in what you see as enough refugees, then I will agree to disagree with it being "appalling" and see where you're coming from.

    People are being convulsively neurotic and making Trump out to be some sort of Hitler 2.0, THAT is my real objection. In a democracy it's fine to disagree and to disagree passionately, but it has to be done with logic and reason, resorting to lewd historical comparisons which actually demean the horrors of those said regimes and crimes committed by them isn't the way to go.
 
 
 
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.