The Student Room Group

Trump's tavel ban

Do the people who were against it now think it was a bad idea? It turns out this guy had travelled to Syria and Libya so maybe this attack would have been prevented?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
He was a British citizen, so no, it wouldn't have helped. Home-grown extremism is the problem, not foreign terrorism. Banning visitors will not help fix the situation. It's something that can only be fixed with careful, long-term strategies and support. Reactionary, populist policies like the travel ban can end up doing more harm than good.
Original post by Dez
He was a British citizen, so no, it wouldn't have helped. Home-grown extremism is the problem, not foreign terrorism. Banning visitors will not help fix the situation. It's something that can only be fixed with careful, long-term strategies and support. Reactionary, populist policies like the travel ban can end up doing more harm than good.


The prick who blew himself up in the Manchester Arena was of Lybian decent. He flew out to Lybia and returned two days before the attack. This implies radicalism possibly occurred over there.

Anyone who travels to these sorts of countries should be investigated, and even more so those who return. That's a solution.
Reply 3
Original post by Dodgypirate
The prick who blew himself up in the Manchester Arena was of Lybian decent. He flew out to Lybia and returned two days before the attack. This implies radicalism possibly occurred over there.

Anyone who travels to these sorts of countries should be investigated, and even more so those who return. That's a solution.


OP was talking about banning foreign nationals akin to the Trump ban though. That wouldn't have caught this guy.

According to reports he was already being investigated anyway, so the issue wasn't that he was unknown, it's that for whatever reason he slipped past the radar. It might be that the police/home office can learn something from that, maybe not. I'm sure they'll be looking to see what lessons can be learned in due course.
Original post by Dodgypirate
The prick who blew himself up in the Manchester Arena was of Lybian decent. He flew out to Lybia and returned two days before the attack. This implies radicalism possibly occurred over there.

Anyone who travels to these sorts of countries should be investigated, and even more so those who return. That's a solution.


I fail to see how this is a solution. So if I go to Israel or Saudi Arabia should I also be investigated seeing that these are known terrorist countries?
Original post by Dez
He was a British citizen, so no, it wouldn't have helped. Home-grown extremism is the problem, not foreign terrorism. Banning visitors will not help fix the situation. It's something that can only be fixed with careful, long-term strategies and support. Reactionary, populist policies like the travel ban can end up doing more harm than good.


He still travelled to Libya. If there was a ban on anyone returning from those countries then yes it would have been prevented. Why are they even allowing people to go to those countries if they are know to the security services?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Dez
He was a British citizen, so no, it wouldn't have helped. Home-grown extremism is the problem, not foreign terrorism. Banning visitors will not help fix the situation. It's something that can only be fixed with careful, long-term strategies and support. Reactionary, populist policies like the travel ban can end up doing more harm than good.


Didn't Trump ban those coming from Lybia? Didn't the Manchester bomb go to Lybia and return 2 days before the attack?
Reply 7
Original post by karl pilkington
He still travelled to Libya. If there was a ban on anyone returning from those countries then yes it would have been prevented. Why are they even allowing people to go to those countries if they are know to the security services?


Original post by Dodgypirate
Didn't Trump ban those coming from Lybia? Didn't the Manchester bomb go to Lybia and return 2 days before the attack?


He had a UK passport, so what would've stopped him from simply catching a flight to Paris instead and hopping on the Eurotunnel?
Original post by Dez
He had a UK passport, so what would've stopped him from simply catching a flight to Paris instead and hopping on the Eurotunnel?


what are you talking about if you travel to any country it would still get recorded on your passport they would still be able to have procedures in place to see if he had travelled to Libya. If he was 'known' to the security services his passport should have been confiscated anyway but that is a separate issue..
Reply 9
Original post by karl pilkington
what are you talking about if you travel to any country it would still get recorded on your passport they would still be able to have procedures in place to see if he had travelled to Libya. If he was 'known' to the security services his passport should have been confiscated anyway but that is a separate issue..


Trump's travel ban is more draconian than I thought then. I thought it was a ban on direct travel, now you're saying it bans anyone who has even set foot in a muslim country? Even when they're a UK-born citizen? Perhaps that would have indeed stopped him then, but such a massive blunt instrument seems entirely overkill. As you say, if he had simply been investigated properly it's possible they could've caught him regardless, travel ban or no.
Original post by Dez
Trump's travel ban is more draconian than I thought then. I thought it was a ban on direct travel, now you're saying it bans anyone who has even set foot in a muslim country? Even when they're a UK-born citizen? Perhaps that would have indeed stopped him then, but such a massive blunt instrument seems entirely overkill. As you say, if he had simply been investigated properly it's possible they could've caught him regardless, travel ban or no.


yes but don't you agree that the ban doesn't seem as a dumb as it was first made out to be?
Reply 11
Original post by karl pilkington
yes but don't you agree that the ban doesn't seem as a dumb as it was first made out to be?


No I still think it's kinda dumb. You cannot hope to eliminate terrorism with blunt instrument policies like that, it does absolutely nothing to stop extremism itself. Any impact it might have on stopping terrorism is rather dwarfed by it's negative impact on freedom of movement and human rights.
Original post by karl pilkington
He still travelled to Libya. If there was a ban on anyone returning from those countries then yes it would have been prevented. Why are they even allowing people to go to those countries if they are know to the security services?


Then what is there to prevent him flying to another country and going across the land border?
Original post by 999tigger
Then what is there to prevent him flying to another country and going across the land border?


To Lybia?

We should just let them go, but not let them back in.
Original post by Dodgypirate
To Lybia?

We should just let them go, but not let them back in.


He was talking about a travel ban being effective by banning flights from Lybia. A potential infiltrator merely finds another route. A ban would not be effective.

How would you prevent them coming back in if you didnt know where they had been? Perhaps ban everyone leaving the country from ever returning...
Original post by 999tigger
He was talking about a travel ban being effective by banning flights from Lybia. A potential infiltrator merely finds another route. A ban would not be effective.

How would you prevent them coming back in if you didnt know where they had been? Perhaps ban everyone leaving the country from ever returning...


he would have a stamp on his passport saying that he went to Libya they don't know for sure whether he went to Syria. A travel ban may not solve anything but it could have prevented this we don't know for sure
Original post by karl pilkington
he would have a stamp on his passport saying that he went to Libya they don't know for sure whether he went to Syria. A travel ban may not solve anything but it could have prevented this we don't know for sure


No he wouldnt because he could just smuggle himself across the border. Libyan immigration authorities arent that great if you hadnt realised.
Original post by Dez
No I still think it's kinda dumb. You cannot hope to eliminate terrorism with blunt instrument policies like that, it does absolutely nothing to stop extremism itself. Any impact it might have on stopping terrorism is rather dwarfed by it's negative impact on freedom of movement and human rights.


It'd be worse than useless. Oppression breeds radicalisation.
Original post by karl pilkington
He still travelled to Libya. If there was a ban on anyone returning from those countries then yes it would have been prevented. Why are they even allowing people to go to those countries if they are know to the security services?


Whoop di do. Tens of thousands of people travel to Libya each year for a whole bunch of legitimate reasons i.e. oil industry. Are you suggesting they all be banned from returning home? And how does that stop uk born radicals from blowing things up e.g 7\7 bombers?
Original post by karl pilkington
what are you talking about if you travel to any country it would still get recorded on your passport they would still be able to have procedures in place to see if he had travelled to Libya. If he was 'known' to the security services his passport should have been confiscated anyway but that is a separate issue..


That's a separate issue entirely and wouldn't have been prevented had the UK sought a travel ban akin to what the Americans tried to put in place.

That ban was only directed at nationals of those countries , not anybody traveling from those countries.

Quick Reply

Latest