Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

by Guest Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:17 pm

There’s a lot to say about President Trump’s executive order on Holocaust Remembrance Day banning citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for 90 days.
But this is one of the most telling:

His proposed list doesn’t include Muslim-majority countries where his Trump Organization has done business or pursued potential deals. Properties include golf courses in the United Arab Emirates and two luxury towers operating in Turkey.

The countries in red are included in the ban. The countries in yellow (where Trump has business interests) are not:

Trump’s strangely limited entry ban Muslim-ban-e1485619617303

Trump’s strangely limited entry ban Muslim-ban-e1485619617303

(Bloomberg News provides a handy guide to Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.)
Trump said the ban is designed to keep Islamic terrorists out of the US. But of the 19 9/11 hijackers responsible for the worst act of terrorism in American history, 15 were from Saudi Arabia (excluded from the ban), two were from the United Arab Emirates (excluded from the ban), and the others were from Egypt (excluded from the ban) and Lebanon (excluded from the ban).
Two days before Trump signed the ban, someone at the Pentagon posted this tweet:

[ltr]
View image on Twitter
Trump’s strangely limited entry ban C29D2HlUkAAftzN

Trump’s strangely limited entry ban C29D2HlUkAAftzN

[/ltr]

Follow
U.S. Dept of Defense

✔@DeptofDefense
[ltr]From refugee to #Marine. @USMC Cpl Ali J. Mohammed takes the fight to the doorstep of those who cast his family out.http://go.usa.gov/x9GCB [/ltr]

1:00 PM - 25 Jan 2017

Iraq is one of the countries to which the entry ban applies. Was Trump being trolled? I hope so.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/01/28/trumps-strangely-limited-entry-ban/

by Original Quill Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:53 am

Bloomberg News wrote:Trump said the ban is designed to keep Islamic terrorists out of the US. But of the 19 9/11 hijackers responsible for the worst act of terrorism in American history, 15 were from Saudi Arabia (excluded from the ban), two were from the United Arab Emirates (excluded from the ban), and the others were from Egypt (excluded from the ban) and Lebanon (excluded from the ban).

And don't forget Turkey, where Trump also has business interests.

Most notable...the ban does not include France, Belgium or Germany....places where most terrorist activity takes place. Indeed, the 9/11 terrorists flew into the US from Hanover, Germany. If one is worried about where the evildoers come into the US--and certainly a Wall builder like Trump should be concerned--it's right there on the edge of Europe,

by veya_victaous Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:51 am

I agree with Quill
a terrorist that is going to infiltrate the USA is far more likely to come from Europe

Over all like the wall rather pointless except to appeal to his mindless base of hill shepherds

by Guest Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:26 am

This makes for interesting reading:

But that is just not true. A new study from Duke University sociologist Charles Kurzman, which tallies up the data on terrorist attacks committed by Muslim Americans, shows why.
The study found that only 46 Muslim Americans (defined as “Muslims who lived in the US for an extended period”) were linked to violent extremism at home or abroad in 2016. The total Muslim American population is 3.3 million.

Of those 46, only 24 were actually implicated in a concrete terrorist plot (the others did things like attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIS). Those plots claimed 54 lives, the vast majority of which (49) came in a single attack — the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando.

The study isn’t making an apples-to-apples comparison; the more directly relevant statistic would look at whether or not Muslim Americans kill more US citizens here than any other specific political or religious group (other research has looked at that question). But Kurzman’s work vividly underscores a simple fact: Muslim Americans, in both raw terms and as a percentage of size of their total community, commit very small numbers of killings.

By contrast, roughly 11,000 Americans were killed in gun homicides in 2016 — yet Trump has never said anything about creating a registry of gun owners.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/27/14412420/terrorism-Muslims-america-islam-trump

by Guest Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:14 am

Original Quill wrote:
Bloomberg News wrote:Trump said the ban is designed to keep Islamic terrorists out of the US. But of the 19 9/11 hijackers responsible for the worst act of terrorism in American history, 15 were from Saudi Arabia (excluded from the ban), two were from the United Arab Emirates (excluded from the ban), and the others were from Egypt (excluded from the ban) and Lebanon (excluded from the ban).

And don't forget Turkey, where Trump also has business interests.

Most notable...the ban does not include France, Belgium or Germany....places where most terrorist activity takes place. Indeed, the 9/11 terrorists flew into the US from Hanover, Germany. If one is worried about where the evildoers come into the US--and certainly a Wall builder like Trump should be concerned--it's right there on the edge of Europe,

Just wondering about this - Public Law 414 - section 212 .

by Eilzel Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:06 am

Original Quill wrote:
Bloomberg News wrote:Trump said the ban is designed to keep Islamic terrorists out of the US. But of the 19 9/11 hijackers responsible for the worst act of terrorism in American history, 15 were from Saudi Arabia (excluded from the ban), two were from the United Arab Emirates (excluded from the ban), and the others were from Egypt (excluded from the ban) and Lebanon (excluded from the ban).

And don't forget Turkey, where Trump also has business interests.

Most notable...the ban does not include France, Belgium or Germany....places where most terrorist activity takes place. Indeed, the 9/11 terrorists flew into the US from Hanover, Germany. If one is worried about where the evildoers come into the US--and certainly a Wall builder like Trump should be concerned--it's right there on the edge of Europe,

Most terrorist attacks do not happen in those countries. A couple or so of notable attacks that were only so high profile because 1. They happened in the west and 2. They are so infrequent.

Far more occur in the Middle East, we just don't hear much about them because 'it always happens there' and 'its far away' so fewer people care. But it still happens far more often and is no less tragic.

All of which is irrelevant since no country should be banning any ethnic or religious group from coming there.

by Guest Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:20 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And don't forget Turkey, where Trump also has business interests.

Most notable...the ban does not include France, Belgium or Germany....places where most terrorist activity takes place. Indeed, the 9/11 terrorists flew into the US from Hanover, Germany. If one is worried about where the evildoers come into the US--and certainly a Wall builder like Trump should be concerned--it's right there on the edge of Europe,

Just wondering about this - Public Law 414 - section 212 .

For Quill I'm interested in this please reply .

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:21 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And don't forget Turkey, where Trump also has business interests.

Most notable...the ban does not include France, Belgium or Germany....places where most terrorist activity takes place. Indeed, the 9/11 terrorists flew into the US from Hanover, Germany. If one is worried about where the evildoers come into the US--and certainly a Wall builder like Trump should be concerned--it's right there on the edge of Europe,

Just wondering about this - Public Law 414 - section 212 .

For Quill I'm interested in this please reply .

http://www.snopes.com/islam-banned-u-s-1952/

by Guest Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:34 pm

Okay but that's not what other Americans are saying .

by Original Quill Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:41 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And don't forget Turkey, where Trump also has business interests.

Most notable...the ban does not include France, Belgium or Germany....places where most terrorist activity takes place. Indeed, the 9/11 terrorists flew into the US from Hanover, Germany. If one is worried about where the evildoers come into the US--and certainly a Wall builder like Trump should be concerned--it's right there on the edge of Europe,

Most terrorist attacks do not happen in those countries. A couple or so of notable attacks that were only so high profile because 1. They happened in the west and 2. They are so infrequent.

Far more occur in the Middle East, we just don't hear much about them because 'it always happens there' and 'its far away' so fewer people care. But it still happens far more often and is no less tragic.

All of which is irrelevant since no country should be banning any ethnic or religious group from coming there.

The Trumpsters argue that it's not a ban on religion, and point to the Muslim nations not on the list. Bur, curiously, all of the unlisted countries are places where Trump has business interests. And some--like Saudi Arabia--have interests vital to the US. Their are multiple reasons for the Muslim nations not in the ban, but consider the inverse: all of the nations included in the ban are Muslim.

But notice the one curiosity within the banned nations: exceptions are made for Christians from the banned countries. I would argue in a court of law that this shows that it is a religious exclusion, in violation to the First Amendment to the Constitution. The exception gerrymanders the rule, and shows that it is 'packing', and indeed, only excluding Muslims.

As far as the sites of terrorism Les, we are talking about terrorist acts, not acts of war. This is the same overlap that the Bush/Cheney cabal played upon. The two are not the same. A terrorist act occurs in an otherwise peaceful surrounding. Wars are all-inclusive, on-going conflict...as you point out, 'it always happens there'. That's the distinguishing mark of a war.

What's going on in the Middle East is war. The Iraq war has never ended, nor has the war in Afghanistan. Syria and Libya are obviously at war...and the Arabian peninsula and Somalia are simply theaters of al-Qaeda conflict. So yes, there's more death and destruction there.

But a terrorist is a specialist. He is much different from a field soldier. He is stealthy, and uses stealth to gain entry to a nation. He relies on 'it not always happening there', if you know what I mean. Going back to my point, the terrorists are in Germany, Belgium and France, hiding out and biding their time until the can make entry to the US.

The terrorists are not coming directly from the Middle East. Given their ports-of-entry, they are coming from Germany, Belgium and France.

by Guest Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:44 pm

in agreement

by Guest Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:30 am

President Trump has had a busy first week in office, displaying the anarchic grandiosity, callousness, and ineptitude of which he seems uniquely capable. He is every inch what we knew him to be: a malignant Chauncey Gardiner. And now our institutions have begun to shudder at his whim. The fact that atheists like me can’t find the time to worry about the religious crackpots he has brought with him into power is a measure of how bad the man is. Christian fundamentalism has become the least of our concerns. Our democracy has been engulfed by a hurricane of lies.

Many readers have asked me to comment on the president’s executive order suspending immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries. I believe I’ve stated my positions on the relevant topics fairly clearly. But perhaps a brief summary is in order.

1. I did everything I could to make the case against Trump prior to the election (while many of the liberals now attacking me for enabling his “Islamophobia” actively undermined the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, even in the final days of the campaign).

2. I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named.

3. However, most of what is being said in opposition to Trump’s order is thoroughly contaminated by identity politics and liberal delusion. The Left seems determined to empower the Right by continuing to lie about the problem of Islamism. As David Frum recently wrote, “When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do.” I have been saying as much for more than a decade—and am vilified by my fellow liberals whenever I do.

4. It is perfectly possible—and increasingly necessary—to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry or disregarding the suffering of refugees. Indeed, when one understands the problem for what it is, one realizes that secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, and former Muslims are among the most desirable allies to have in the West—and, indeed, such people are the primary victims of Islamist intolerance and jihadist terror in Muslim-majority countries.

5. If liberals who refuse to speak honestly on these topics continue to march with Islamists, denigrate free speech, and oppose the work of the real reformers in the Muslim community, they will only further provoke and empower Trump. And Trump, in turn, will empower Islamists the world over by threatening the civil liberties of all Muslims within his reach.

6. The next acts of jihadist terrorism to take place on American soil will most likely be met with terrifyingly blunt (and even illegal) countermeasures by the Trump administration. If all that liberals can do in response is continue to lie about the causes of terrorism and lock arms with Islamists, we have some very rough times ahead.

7. If you are listening to obscurantists like Linda Sarsour, Dalia Mogahed, Reza Aslan, and representatives of CAIR, and denigrating true secularists and reformers like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Raheel Raza, and Sarah Haider, you are part of the problem.

Nothing that I have said or written about Islam, the war on terror, or even “profiling”^[1] stands in contradiction to these points. What we need, above all, is a new center to our politics—one that defends secularism, science, and free speech against their enemies on both the Left and the Right. And now we each must choose between supporting that civilizing project or joining in the chaos to come.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-Muslim-ban?utm_source=Main+List&utm_campaign=e0794dde3c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f1c2a2c9db-e0794dde3c-207165353&mc_cid=e0794dde3c&mc_eid=8186d3ca27

by Original Quill Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:03 am

Thorin wrote:President Trump has had a busy first week in office, displaying the anarchic grandiosity, callousness, and ineptitude of which he seems uniquely capable. He is every inch what we knew him to be: a malignant Chauncey Gardiner. And now our institutions have begun to shudder at his whim. The fact that atheists like me can’t find the time to worry about the religious crackpots he has brought with him into power is a measure of how bad the man is. Christian fundamentalism has become the least of our concerns. Our democracy has been engulfed by a hurricane of lies.

Many readers have asked me to comment on the president’s executive order suspending immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries. I believe I’ve stated my positions on the relevant topics fairly clearly. But perhaps a brief summary is in order.

1. I did everything I could to make the case against Trump prior to the election (while many of the liberals now attacking me for enabling his “Islamophobia” actively undermined the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, even in the final days of the campaign).

2. I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named.

3. However, most of what is being said in opposition to Trump’s order is thoroughly contaminated by identity politics and liberal delusion. The Left seems determined to empower the Right by continuing to lie about the problem of Islamism. As David Frum recently wrote, “When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do.” I have been saying as much for more than a decade—and am vilified by my fellow liberals whenever I do.

4. It is perfectly possible—and increasingly necessary—to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry or disregarding the suffering of refugees. Indeed, when one understands the problem for what it is, one realizes that secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, and former Muslims are among the most desirable allies to have in the West—and, indeed, such people are the primary victims of Islamist intolerance and jihadist terror in Muslim-majority countries.

5. If liberals who refuse to speak honestly on these topics continue to march with Islamists, denigrate free speech, and oppose the work of the real reformers in the Muslim community, they will only further provoke and empower Trump. And Trump, in turn, will empower Islamists the world over by threatening the civil liberties of all Muslims within his reach.

6. The next acts of jihadist terrorism to take place on American soil will most likely be met with terrifyingly blunt (and even illegal) countermeasures by the Trump administration. If all that liberals can do in response is continue to lie about the causes of terrorism and lock arms with Islamists, we have some very rough times ahead.

7. If you are listening to obscurantists like Linda Sarsour, Dalia Mogahed, Reza Aslan, and representatives of CAIR, and denigrating true secularists and reformers like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Raheel Raza, and Sarah Haider, you are part of the problem.

Nothing that I have said or written about Islam, the war on terror, or even “profiling”^[1] stands in contradiction to these points. What we need, above all, is a new center to our politics—one that defends secularism, science, and free speech against their enemies on both the Left and the Right. And now we each must choose between supporting that civilizing project or joining in the chaos to come.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-Muslim-ban?utm_source=Main+List&utm_campaign=e0794dde3c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f1c2a2c9db-e0794dde3c-207165353&mc_cid=e0794dde3c&mc_eid=8186d3ca27

With all due respect, didge, that piece was nice when Sam Harris wrote it in his blog.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-Muslim-ban

Have you any thoughts you want to add?

by Guest Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:22 am

It says it all really, what Sam said, and he is right. I leave it to others to decider and counter if they disagree and then I will counter their views.

This is also interesting:

I obtained my British passport when I was 16 and only after I had lived in the UK for most of my life.

I remember it was a rigorous process. The final stage involved my swearing the citizenship oath of allegiance and pledge in front of a magistrate. At the time, I was a creature of the far left with a congruous anti-royal bent. I told the magistrate I objected to “I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors”.

The magistrate explained that in this context, my oath was to the UK’s Head of State, so I need not worry about any ideological opposition to monarchy.

I thought carefully for a minute, then took the oath. And meant it.
I do wonder how many of the millions of foreign nationals who have obtained British citizenship in the last couple of decades thought about the oath they took. Were sincere when they took it. How many felt as proud and privileged to become a British citizen as I did all those years ago.

The problem is we can’t know. When the numbers are so high and when the bar has been so low for so many years, we simply can’t know.

It’s important to acknowledge that Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ is not a ban on Muslims – it’s an arbitrary 90-day ban on citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.

It may come as a surprise to those protesting this development, but for many like me, it’s nothing new. The days when, as a British passport holder, I went to the US by simply completing an online ESTA form like my fellow British citizens ended last year, when Obama was still sitting in the President’s chair.

It was his administration that implemented new rules in 2016 exempting dual-nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria or Sudan from travelling to the US without obtaining a visa first – an onerous process involving a rigorous face-to-face interview at the US embassy.

Note to the protestors – does that not sound like ‘extreme vetting’? It certainly felt like it to me.

Trump has simply added Libya, Somalia and Yemen to that list of ‘pariah’ states and turned a discriminatory process into a more discriminatory 90 day ban whilst his version of ‘extreme vetting’ is formulated

The generally appropriate response to this type of situation nowadays is to be angry. I ought to be writing a piece on profiling, racism or Islamophobia. One would expect my twitter feed to be filled with howls of victimhood, blame and outraged anti-Americanism.

Naturally, I feel saddened. And inconvenienced – many of my relatives live in the US. But my main emotion is worry. Worry about the competence of Trump’s administration in formulating an intelligent or even workable ‘extreme vetting’ process. Certainly, his choice of ‘pariah’ states is muddled and cowardly – I’d imagine there’s much more chance of a citizen of Saudi Arabia engaging in a terrorist act than some of the countries on his enhanced ‘pariah’ list. Most of all, I’m concerned that Trump and his team are dangerously ignorant of the difference between a secular-democracy supporting ‘Muslim’ and an ‘Islamist’ – ie someone who believes that their interpretation of Islam ought ultimately to be imposed on society as a political and legal system through violent or non-violent means.
But angered? Outraged? No. For naturalised foreigners, the value of our British passports was already eroded. And our Home Office is to blame thanks to its ideologically-driven enthusiasm for dishing out British citizenship without the due care and consideration that such a significant act warrants.

I retain my anger and outrage for those who have caused Iran to deserve its ‘pariah’ label.

It sponsors terrorism throughout the world. It funds & promotes an extremist version of Shia Islamism throughout Europe and the Middle East. It is extremely hostile to the USA. It openly seeks its destruction.

Even if one made the absurd argument that Iran does none of the above, the fact is that the USA, as a sovereign state, has determined it is a threat.

And I am after all an Iranian citizen. It is my choice to be (albeit through necessity: As someone considered ‘Iranian’ under Iranian law, I cannot travel to Iran with my British passport).
To be outraged at my predicament would be to pretend that the concept of the nation state, within secured and controlled borders, that has existed for centuries in the West and many other parts of the world, is somehow no longer valid. Or else, pretend it never really existed – a delusion that seems to have afflicted a vocal and powerful minority in the last decade or so.

I believe many of the alarming events we see today, such as Trump, Le Pen, Wilders and the ‘mainstreaming’ of far-right politics comes from the disconnect between that minority and the overwhelming majority of the citizens of nation states who feel uncomfortable with the notion that their nations and borders are no longer valid. That their right to security, self-determination and identity are being eroded, against their wishes.

Setting all emotion aside, I can see no logical reason for the US, nor any other foreign country for that matter, to disregard my Iranian nationality and treat me as a British citizen, based upon nothing else but my say-so. Yet exactly that type of thinking has become the accepted wisdom in recent years.

Consider this: In only 13 years, from 2000, the UK issued 2 million passports to to non-UK citizens.

Forget ‘extreme vetting, there wasn’t even ‘minimal vetting’ – in most of the above cases, British citizenship was awarded with hardly any checks. For decades, it was extremely rare for any applicant to be interviewed during the naturalisation process – there wasn’t even a facility to conduct interviews. Predictably, this resulted in a fair few undesirable people being granted British citizenship. [Source.]
It seems absurd that conducting due diligence before granting citizenship to foreign nationals is considered ‘racist’ by some. It seems recklessly naive to disregard the possibility that the person you’re making a ‘citizen’ of your country hates you and your liberal, secular and democratic system. Such people may only make up a small minority of naturalised people, but it’s just so damned foolhardy.

I have no doubt that undesirable naturalised immigrants, Iranian or otherwise are rare. But they doubtless do exist and it’s possible to find them them, as I have, chanting “Margh bar Amrika” (Death to America) in London, on Al Quds day.

So, with a UK immigration system that has so devalued British citizenship for naturalised citizens, how is ‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection’ to know that I am not like those ‘British citizens’ who call for its death in London? How can it be sure I am not a supporter of the Iranian regime? How can it be certain that I do not hate its country and wish to do it harm?

Clearly, the fact that I hold a British passport no longer provides the reassurance it once did.

And what is U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s primary obligation? To protect the American public or avoid offending and inconveniencing the nationals of states that quite openly wish to do it harm?

I don’t object to being asked to confirm that I do not support totalitarian or fascistic political ideologies. I don’t object to being vetted to ascertain I do not hate a country or its system before I’m allowed into it. Heck, as an Iranian passport holder, I don’t object to being subjected to ‘extreme vetting’. But I I have little doubt that Trump’s ‘solutions’ will be brutally simplistic, ineffective and the thin end of a very tall wedge.

For many years, I’ve feared and warned that the ‘global-citizen’ experiment that the West has been conducting and that has failed so spectacularly will result in an over-correction that swings too far in the wrong direction.

And with every passing week it seems, my long-held fears are vindicated.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/01/30/obama-pioneered-both-the-%E2%80%98muslim-ban%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98extreme-vetting%E2%80%99-trump-made-it-news/

by Original Quill Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:35 am

So you are in favor of the ban?

by Guest Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:36 am

Original Quill wrote:So you are in favor of the ban?

Nope

by The Devil, You Know Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:54 am

was their the same outrage when obama banned iraqi's in 2011?

or when the 5 previous presidents did pretty much the same thing over the last 30 years or so.

by Guest Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:56 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:was their the same outrage when obama banned iraqi's in 2011?

or when the 5 previous presidents did pretty much the same thing over the last 30 years or so.

How does that make it right?

That is misdirection.

Either you support the blanket ban of all citizens, no matter their faith and ethnicity from these Muslim majority countries, or you do not.

by The Devil, You Know Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:15 pm

Thorin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:was their the same outrage when obama banned iraqi's in 2011?

or when the 5 previous presidents did pretty much the same thing over the last 30 years or so.

How does that make it right?

That is misdirection.

Either you support the blanket ban of all citizens, no matter their faith and ethnicity from these Muslim majority countries, or you do not.

there is not a blanket ban. You have been reading too many fake news sites again.

my question was why there was no outrage when the previous 5 presidents did the same thing.

It has nothing to do with bans or vetting and all to do with snowflakes stamping their feet and crying their delicious tears

by Guest Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:17 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How does that make it right?

That is misdirection.

Either you support the blanket ban of all citizens, no matter their faith and ethnicity from these Muslim majority countries, or you do not.
there is not a blanket ban. You have been reading too many fake news sites again.

my question was why there was no outrage when the previous 5 presidents did the same thing.

It has nothing to do with bans or vetting and all to do with snowflakes stamping their feet and crying their delicious tears

Really based on what evidence. All people have been stopped from entering from a number of Muslim majority countries, for at least 3 months

I could not care about the outrage issue you have

This is about whether it is right or not

Now either put up the evidence or crawl away as you always do when exposed for your ignorance

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:13 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:was their the same outrage when obama banned iraqi's in 2011?

or when the 5 previous presidents did pretty much the same thing over the last 30 years or so.

Ah, maybe you could use one of the Devil's honorifics, "Prince of Lies," as your user name.

Trump’s executive order stops all Iraqi citizens from temporarily entering the U.S. “on any visa category,” affecting those trying to visit family or come here for work, in addition to live. It also affects six other countries. It originally included permanent legal residents of the U.S. with green cards, but on Sunday, the Department of Homeland Security said green card holders would be allowed into the country.

While Obama did halt the refugee program, it did not impact green card holders, or anyone with a visa. It also did not affect refugees who had already gone through the vetting process. Trump’s travel ban barred entry to the United States to those groups, causing a chaotic situation for travelers from the seven affected countries and leading to protests at airports across the country.

“Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents,” the Washington Post reports.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-Muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:36 pm

and the ban includes dual citizens.

effecting Multicultural Australians
one of the cases the kid an honor student that has been since he was a toddler and had his visa cancelled so he is not allowed to go to space camp

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:12 am

THE FORMER US ambassador to Australia, Jeff Bleich, has joined a chorus of condemnation for President Donald Trump’s immigrant ban, declaring it “illegal and cruel” in a scathing attack.

Mr Bleich, who was a popular figure during his Australian tenure, broke with the political neutrality expected of diplomats to attack the executive order signed by Donald Trump at the weekend.

The Barack Obama loyalist said he took no pleasure in condemning his country but, “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality”.

“As an American, a patriot, and as a human being, I have no choice,” he wrote in an impassioned Facebook post.

“President Trump’s Executive Order banning all refugees from entering the United States and seeking asylum is illegal and cruel, and it violates the most basic tenets of our nation. This land was settled by people seeking freedom from religious persecution.

“Barring access to all asylum seekers not only breaks the law, it breaks faith with who we are as a people.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/ambassadors-scathing-attack-on-donald-trump/news-story/870640f852477852130731f81682ec2d

by Sponsored content

Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban

Re: Trump’s strangely limited entry ban