Donald Trump's travel ban fact-checked: How the claims measure up

Many Muslims support extreme vetting

https://worldisraelnews.com/watch-many-Muslims-support-extreme-vetting/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1485878645&_p_c

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Many Muslims support extreme vetting

https://worldisraelnews.com/watch-many-Muslims-support-extreme-vetting/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1485878645&_p_c

What has that got to do with banning?

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Many Muslims support extreme vetting

https://worldisraelnews.com/watch-many-Muslims-support-extreme-vetting/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1485878645&_p_c

What has that got to do with banning?

did you listen to it ?

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What has that got to do with banning?

did you listen to it ?

Yes it was the view of one person and again what has extreme vetting got to do with banning?

Thorin, what is your opposition to this form of banning?  
Liberals will give you a narrative that this is "Muslim banning".  Pffft!  This ban only includes 7 nations.  That's right... 7 whole nations. Woo hoooo.
The Liberal press would have you think that this is a travesty.  And that weak naivete and even weaker thinking is what got them kicked out of the Oval Office this past election cycle.  

How many predominately Muslim nations are there?  

Pew Research Center is Liberal, so suck it Liberal loser naysayers!! wrote:
Muslims make up a majority of the population in 49 countries around the world. The country with the largest number (about 209 million) is Indonesia, where 87.2% of the population identifies as Muslim. India has the world’s second-largest Muslim population in raw numbers (roughly 176 million), though Muslims make up just 14.4% of India’s total population.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/31/worlds-Muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

49 Muslim nations, and we only ban the 7 that OBAMA deemed as terrorist regimes!

You're on a rant and you don't know why!

1) Where did I say Muslim ban?

2) This is banning citizens from 7 countries, simply based on no intelligence but a fear based belief.

3) How many Americans in the US have been killed by terrorism by people from these 7 countries?

No need to answer, its zero

So again whether Obama deemed nations as  terrorist, does that mean all its citizens are terrorist?

The answer is no.

I dont do ranting, that is is you being immature with misdirection.

Do grow up, or you likely to find yourself quickly ignored

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Thorin, what is your opposition to this form of banning?  
Liberals will give you a narrative that this is "Muslim banning".  Pffft!  This ban only includes 7 nations.  That's right... 7 whole nations. Woo hoooo.
The Liberal press would have you think that this is a travesty.  And that weak naivete and even weaker thinking is what got them kicked out of the Oval Office this past election cycle.  

How many predominately Muslim nations are there?  

Pew Research Center is Liberal, so suck it Liberal loser naysayers!! wrote:
Muslims make up a majority of the population in 49 countries around the world. The country with the largest number (about 209 million) is Indonesia, where 87.2% of the population identifies as Muslim. India has the world’s second-largest Muslim population in raw numbers (roughly 176 million), though Muslims make up just 14.4% of India’s total population.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/31/worlds-Muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

49 Muslim nations, and we only ban the 7 that OBAMA deemed as terrorist regimes!

You're on a rant and you don't know why!

You really are one brainless and unthinking little blob of emptiness,  I/T...

When are you going to live up to your name, and show us some truly "independent" thinking..

Rather than your endlessly regurgitated Trumpster and Tea Party puff pieces  ?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Thorin, what is your opposition to this form of banning?  
Liberals will give you a narrative that this is "Muslim banning".  Pffft!  This ban only includes 7 nations.  That's right... 7 whole nations. Woo hoooo.
The Liberal press would have you think that this is a travesty.  And that weak naivete and even weaker thinking is what got them kicked out of the Oval Office this past election cycle.  

How many predominately Muslim nations are there?  

Pew Research Center is Liberal, so suck it Liberal loser naysayers!! wrote:
Muslims make up a majority of the population in 49 countries around the world. The country with the largest number (about 209 million) is Indonesia, where 87.2% of the population identifies as Muslim. India has the world’s second-largest Muslim population in raw numbers (roughly 176 million), though Muslims make up just 14.4% of India’s total population.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/31/worlds-Muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

49 Muslim nations, and we only ban the 7 that OBAMA deemed as terrorist regimes!

You're on a rant and you don't know why!

The real question is, why are there only Muslim nations on the list when the real threat comes from Germany, Belgium and France.  These are the countries, with tonnes of terrorists within their borders, from which terrorists would enter the US.  Germany was the country from which the 9/11 terrorists entered the US.  The Executive Order specifically mentions 9/11 as being the source of its concern:

Executive Order: Entry wrote:Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States [from Germany].

If this EO has as its objective the protection of the US from the sorts of attacks that happened on 9/11, why does it not ban entry of those from the very nation that the 9/11 terrorists came?  Perhaps Golden Showers doesn't have America's best interests in mind at all.  Perhaps he is violating the Constitution just to appease his radical base.

Thorin wrote:
Where did I say Muslim ban?

You, per se, didn't say it, but your link that you've pasted on 2 threads makes a very ambiguous stance.  Since you've pasted it twice, am I correct to assume you believe its contents and are conveying its message as yours, by proxy?

Your quote succinctly asserts:

...Donald Trump's travel ban is not a ban on Muslims.

But then it backflips on itself with it's concluding sentence, in the same passage:

It does discriminate against Muslims, though...

Thorin wrote:
This is banning citizens from 7 countries, simply based on no intelligence but a fear based belief.

No, it's based on what we've seen in Europe.  Germany used to have an open-door and open-arms approach to accepting refugees.  Used to.  What changed Merkel's stance towards funneling refugees into her country, unvetted?  Answer: The same things we're trying to avoid.

In a rare show of regret, Angela Merkel admits she lost control of Germany’s refugee crisis
Germany's Migrant Rape Crisis Spirals out of Control
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/16/european-opinions-of-the-refugee-crisis-in-5-charts/

Look at France.  Belgium.  Turkey.
If we don't learn from the mistakes of others, we're destined to repeat them.

Thorin wrote:]How many Americans in the US have been killed by terrorism by people from these 7 countries?

How many have to be killed before preventative measures are justified or taken?

Thorin wrote:Do grow up, or you likely to find yourself quickly ignored

Don't get all personal and twisted.  I'm here to educate you.

1) That is because it is blatantly aimed at Muslims, but it states that all are banned, but you clearly did not read the rest did you? Did you read the part how Christians maybe exempt after 120 days? No? I mean why else target only Muslim majority countries, if its not for the view this is aimed at Islamic terrorism? Its also is discriminating Muslims, Christians ect, from these nations, so no contradiction.

2) Based on what you have seen in Europe? Come again?
So America is going to protect its borders, by banning people who you have now made a connection to all these 7 countries based on events in Europe? Please list all the perpetrators and how on earth they make the US unsafe? But not banning any of the European countries. That makes zero sense

3) So your reasoning to claim this is okay to ban people is based off a statement Merkal made? 
PMSL, is that it?
I am even more confused, I thought this was about safety from terrorism? Not whether someone open the doors to a million people and never checked them and you are comparing this to a complete ban?
Come again?

So by your reasoning Trump should ban anyone from Europe as well then, as Islamist terrorists are more likely to come that way into the US. 

4) But none have been killed in terrorist attacks from members from these countries and its so ineffective to say the least. So you have had no terrorist attacks from members of these countries, yet have tens of millions visit as tourists. Millions with business and no doubt some of which have committed murder and rape. So you decided to ban a select number of countries, failing to protect anyone by such a measure, especially when most of the terrorist attacks are home grown. But lets wait a minute, if we are going off threats due to terrorism, surely this extends to any perceived threat. Which as seen none have happened from these countries. That means any with a far right ideology within a nation should be banned as well. Due to Far right terrorism in the US, correct? The worst part of your argument, is that he has not banned any nations where people have committed terrorism in the US. For one Saudi Arabia, but he does personal business with them, showing your defense of Trump here is embarrassing to say the least

You see you are coming out with the most absurd reasons to back banning people based off nothing more than a fear.

That makes you and Trump sheep

Baaaa

There's an old saying:
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The US is under no obligation to take any immigrants, and we reserve the right to bar entry to anyone we feel may pose a security threat or whose presence could prove detrimental to our society.

Call it Muslim banning, or whatever else. It's not going to change the fact that the majority of Americans support and want this ban.  This was one of Trump's campaign promises -- one that prompted many Americans to vote for him.

WASHINGTON TIMES wrote:
A majority of voters back the concept of halting admissions from seven terrorist-connected countries, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll Monday that found general broad support for the kind of executive order President Trump signed on Friday.
That order has sparked confusion and protests at airports and outrage on Capitol Hill, where both Democrats and Republicans say it was poorly crafted and snagged too many people. Some Republicans even warned it could make the U.S. less safe by becoming a new recruiting tool for terrorists.
But voters are more enthusiastic about the policy, Rasmussen said, with 56 percent saying a pause in visas for Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Libya makes sense.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_seven_nations

Less than a third of those surveyed opposed the temporary ban, and 11 percent were undecided,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/30/voters-back-idea-trumps-travel-halt/


Bottom line is, this is what the people of America want.  And that's that.  The POTUS is here to serve the people and work on their behalf -- something that the Democrats have woefully forgotten and fallen short on, the past 8 years.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:There's an old saying:
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The US is under no obligation to take any immigrants, and we reserve the right to bar entry to anyone we feel may pose a security threat or whose presence could prove detrimental to our society.

Call it Muslim banning, or whatever else. It's not going to change the fact that the majority of Americans support and want this ban.  This was one of Trump's campaign promises -- one that prompted many Americans to vote for him.

WASHINGTON TIMES wrote:
A majority of voters back the concept of halting admissions from seven terrorist-connected countries, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll Monday that found general broad support for the kind of executive order President Trump signed on Friday.
That order has sparked confusion and protests at airports and outrage on Capitol Hill, where both Democrats and Republicans say it was poorly crafted and snagged too many people. Some Republicans even warned it could make the U.S. less safe by becoming a new recruiting tool for terrorists.
But voters are more enthusiastic about the policy, Rasmussen said, with 56 percent saying a pause in visas for Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Libya makes sense.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_seven_nations

Less than a third of those surveyed opposed the temporary ban, and 11 percent were undecided,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/30/voters-back-idea-trumps-travel-halt/


Bottom line is, this is what the people of America want.  And that's that.  The POTUS is here to serve the people and work on their behalf -- something that the Democrats have woefully forgotten and fallen short on, the past 8 years.

So by your logic, the only way to prevent terrorism, would be having to close all borders to all people.
Which would bankrupt the US. Where even then this would fail to prevent terrorism, from those home grown.

You would then have to initiate Marshall law and, snooping on all US citizens, who would lose all their freedoms. All because you believe in being over the top, thinking banning people. From 7 nations where there has never been someone from who has committed terrorism. Whilst continuing to allow other nations, which have had people come to the US and commit terrorism.

Once upon a time the German people wanted the Jews out of Germany. Hitler was there to serve the Germany people.

60 million dead later, shows that a minority view, as in both cases, both were elected from minority support. Does not mean what the people want is the best thing to do. Especially when its driven by negative emotions

Thorin wrote:So by your logic, the only way to prevent terrorism...

Not at all. I don't think anyone believes that "the only way to prevent terrorism" is [insert way, here]. There is no silver bullet for this issue. This is simply one of many measures implemented to enforce national security and immigration policies. My logic, as well as the logic of 56% of Americans, lends us to believe that this added measure is a viable approach to strengthening our vetting process.

Thorin wrote:You would then have to initiate Marshall law...

I think you mean Martial Law. And why would we have to activate the National Guard? For what purpose or means? I don't see how we got here, in this conversation.

...snooping on all US citizens...

We had that during the Obama administration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/judge-deals-a-blow-to-nsa-phone-surveillance-program.html?_r=0
Funny that the Liberals didn't make a big stink of it when Obama was in office. Now that a Republican is in office, it'll suddenly become an issue for them. Double standards, again.


You paint a pretty grim picture with the rest of your post. I think you're over-reacting a bit. Vetting people that want to enter the US isn't going to turn Americans into Nazis (per your Hitler reference), or cause our economy to tank. That's all left-wing hysterics.

1) Absurd reasoning. Again do you think you solve a problem by trying to push that problem away, in a warped way, that does not even get to the root cause of the problem of Islamic terrorism in the first place? How you can call it logic when I have shown that nobody from these countries has committed terrorism in the US and yet nations not banned, have committed terrorism. Its a show case publicity stunt, to warm to his sheep supporters. So it has done zero to protect the US from terrorism. To them claim a majority of people makes your view is again illogical. Take the point again of where people have supported people like, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini etc.

2) Its very easy to see how you get there when the reasoning for Martial law being imposed is based on a fear and threat of terrorism, specially when the threat from home grown terrorism, far exceeds anything coming from the 7 banned nations. Which you just rendered your own argument to the ban redundant. If where you have a far greater threat of terrorism within the US and you do not think it requires measures, then your reasoning to the 7 banned countries falls apart. Even further when people have come from countries not banned and committed terrorism in the US. It will be more than phone surveillance, which shows you do not understand what would happen under such a law. So how is it a double standard? Where did I ever back that from Obama? You make this same mistake everytime, as if I support him, why do you stupidly do that all the time? It shows your argument is desperate.

3) Sorry did you say over reacting? Funny enough that is exactly what this ban is, an over reaction to fear, but glad to see i was able to show you how bad an over reaction it is.

Thorin wrote:Again do you think you solve a problem by trying to push that problem away, in a warped way, that does not even get to the root cause of the problem of Islamic terrorism in the first place?

Once more, you're thinking in absolute terms. And, again, I have to reiterate that nobody believes this measure (or any one measure, for that matter) serves as the grand solution to terrorism. This is one of many measures put into place. Collectively, they work together to form the security and immigration net. No one measure is a cure all, and this one was never peddled as a way to "get to the root cause of the problem of Islamic terrorism". It's simply a temporary travel ban, for chrissake.

Yes, you are over reacting. Other countries around the globe implement similar and more strict standards, yet everyone centers around Trump's ban.
Again, these protests aren't about Trump's policies. They're about playing gotcha politics. No matter what Trump does or how well he does it, the left will be there to protest and cry foul.
This is one of many non-issues that will be debated in the next 8 years, for no other reason than the left can't stand Trump.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:Again do you think you solve a problem by trying to push that problem away, in a warped way, that does not even get to the root cause of the problem of Islamic terrorism in the first place?

Once more, you're thinking in absolute terms.  And, again, I have to reiterate that nobody believes this measure (or any one measure, for that matter) serves as the grand solution to terrorism.  This is one of many measures put into place.  Collectively, they work together to form the security and immigration net.  No one measure is a cure all, and this one was never peddled as a way to "get to the root cause of the problem of Islamic terrorism".  It's simply a temporary travel ban, for chrissake.

Yes, you are over reacting.  Other countries around the globe implement similar and more strict standards, yet everyone centers around Trump's ban.
Again, these protests aren't about Trump's policies.  They're about playing gotcha politics.  No matter what Trump does or how well he does it, the left will be there to protest and cry foul.
This is one of many non-issues that will be debated in the next 8 years, for no other reason than the left can't stand Trump.

But you fail to see the point, this does nothing to deter or stop terrorism. This measure has done what exactly? Other than to piss of half the world and damage an already poor reputation the US has. The fact you cannot even see this is a publicity stunt says it all. As I said, this ban is not even effective, when its intelligence that is effective in preventing terrorist attacks. You could put every measure in the world in place and still not prevent terrorism. The fact that you have ignored how again countries that do have links to terrorism and have had people commit terrorism in the US. has you brush this silently under the carpet, which renders the view to ban countries where none have committed terrorism in the US redundant and that the ban is based on over reacting fear based emotion. Even more so when you have thousands of murders each year, you think you might want to tackle that more pressing issue. Than to pander to the over exaggerate fears of people.

Then you invoke an even worse argument, claiming other countries do this. Yes some countries ban Israeli's, are you claiming that is acceptable? No its not, because the thesis for the ban is based on guilt by association, which is making all people seen to be guilty, from a nation that takes the view everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. So this ban goes against the very aspects of US society and what it stands for.

I am not even left wing and I think Trump is an utter conman, narcissistic, unbalanced, egotistic and a danger to society, who will end up ruining America for decades to come.

Thorin wrote:But you fail to see the point, this does nothing to deter or stop terrorism.

It's not meant to. You can't control what someone does. But if someone is intent on stabbing, shooting, or blowing things up, these measures will help to prevent it from happening on our soil.

You seem to be in strong favor of passive immigration enforcement and lax security. Neither of which are consistent with this nation's sentiment towards immigration, as I previously quoted.

Again, it's not meant to deter or prevent terrorism; it's meant to keep it from reaching our side of the pond.
If these countries want off our ban list, then perhaps they should start cleaning house. Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Libya are all terrorist hotbeds. If the country can't or won't dispel their trash, then we should shut them off. This is a new administration. The days of Do-Nothing-Obama exist only in the rear view mirror.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:But you fail to see the point, this does nothing to deter or stop terrorism.

It's not meant to.  You can't control what someone does.  But if someone is intent on stabbing, shooting, or blowing things up, these measures will help to prevent it from happening on our soil.  

You seem to be in strong favor of passive immigration enforcement and lax security.  Neither of which are consistent with this nation's sentiment towards immigration, as I previously quoted.

Again, it's not meant to deter or prevent terrorism; it's meant to keep it from reaching our side of the pond.
If these countries want off our ban list, then perhaps they should start cleaning house.  Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Libya are all terrorist hotbeds.  If the country can't or won't dispel their trash, then we should shut them off.  This is a new administration.  The days of Do-Nothing-Obama exist only in the rear view mirror.

1) Really, is that why the US has over 10,000 murders each year?

2) Show me anywhere that I have stated I am for lax security or passive immigration? Never have, I am against banning people based solely on guilt by association.

3) But that is a fallacy, when other countries where people have come from and committed terrorism in the US are not blacklisted. Of which renders again your view point redundant. Not sure how you dispel trash, in the middle of a civil war in Syria for example, where Christians, Muslims, Yazidi's, Druze, Kurds etc are being murdered and persecuted. Of course if the US and Nato had of acted and stepped in. There would not be the massive refugee crisis in the first place. Which I have often stated. This refugee crisis would have also happened in Iraq, if Saddam had of stayed in power and the Arab Spring came there too. Of which it would have done. What you are saying is that because of some terrorists, fuck all the rest. When you can vet all people coming in. It does not warrant committing to a ban. The US was born and grew from immigration, where in countless times of its history, different groups have face this constant same prejudice. From the Africans, the Chinese, the Italians, the Jews, the Irish and countless more. What you fail to grasp is this is nothing new. But to claim this is protecting lives, is a fallacy, when countless people can still enter the US anyway. Hence the absurdity of the call for this ban.

1 - Someone killing their wife's adulterous lover, or a gang shoot out, are criminal cases.  They're significantly different from someone plowing a truck through a crowd of people or setting off bombs in crowded markets.  There is no comparison.

2 - You have openly stated many times that the US policy towards immigration is wrong because of the temporary ban put into place to reevaluate immigration policies from these areas.  That sounds like you're interested in doing nothing to better secure our immigration infrastructure.

3 - You're trying to paint a happy picture over an ugly tattoo to cover it.

We don't want this in the US:
Germany's migrant crisis: Refugees committed more than 200,000 crimes last year

You claim that we basing decisions on fear, however a poll of Syrian refugees indicate that we have cause for concern.
13 Percent of Syrian Refugees Support ISIS: Poll
SHOCK POLL: Third of Syrian Refugees ISIS Sympathizers, 13 Percent Support

So, yes, this presents a very clear and imminent problem. And this is the solution that the majority of Americans want.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:1 - Someone killing their wife's adulterous lover, or a gang shoot out, are criminal cases.  They're significantly different from someone plowing a truck through a crowd of people or setting off bombs in crowded markets.  There is no comparison.

2 - You have openly stated many times that the US policy towards immigration is wrong because of the temporary ban put into place to reevaluate immigration policies from these areas.  That sounds like you're interested in doing nothing to better secure our immigration infrastructure.

3 - You're trying to paint a happy picture over an ugly tattoo to cover it.

We don't want this in the US:
Germany's migrant crisis: Refugees committed more than 200,000 crimes last year

You claim that we basing decisions on fear, however a poll of Syrian refugees indicate that we have cause for concern.
13 Percent of Syrian Refugees Support ISIS: Poll
SHOCK POLL: Third of Syrian Refugees ISIS Sympathizers, 13 Percent Support

So, yes, this presents a very clear and imminent problem.  And this is the solution that the majority of Americans want.

1) But your precedent is claiming to keep America safe based off a fallacy. How many people are killd by terrorism, compared to murders each year?  If then even worse you only ban some countries and not others, then you render that system inadequate to protect the citizens, as you would need to ban all people entering. You are right there is no comparison, as terrorist attacks is minor compared to the murder rate and yet is being over exaggerated as more pressing than the murder rate.

2) Waffle, you are just making poor claims. I have told you exactly my views, which you keep trying to be desperate to get something on views to deflect off the topic here on bans

3) Well considering the headline is lie, when the paper eludes to migrants and immigrants committing crimes. Migrants if within the EU can move freely. You need to read more carefully what you google. So exactly how many were committed by refugees in reality In Germany?
And lets actually see what most of these crimes actually were

The nature of the offences appears to be mostly minor: 28,712 cases of riding on public transport without paying the fare, 52,167 incidents of forging paperwork in a bid to get money, 85,035 cases of theft, mosty shoplifting - nearly double those of 2014

So not only are you going off a Headline fail, but as seen most of the crimes are of clearly people hungry, poor and without money. The horror.

Not only that, they never all came from Syria

4) So because of 13%, you are condemning the other 87%. Like I said, guilt by association and since when was it a crime to hold beliefs? Now if the bases is not to allow people in with Totalitarian neo conservative religious beliefs. Of which ISIS is. Then that would rule out the present majority of the Republican party, would it not? Not only that it was 3 years ago, that Poll. Of which many of those refugees could be in Turkey and other Arab states who are sympathetic. Of which most of them are in camps in the Middle East.

So being as there has been tens of thousands Syrian refugees. Who have entered the US and not a single terrorist incident from them. Shows again how over the top you are being and you are driven not by reason, but fear based irrational negativity. So thanks for those two links, you just made the case further against how absurd the ban is.