Not sure what you mean. It was made clear when he signed the executive order. It's obvious by the fact that it doesn't mention Muslims and does not restrict travel from many majority Muslim countries nor does it restrict travel by Muslims from non-Muslim majority countries. You can agree with what he did or not but calling it a ban on Muslims is disingenuous at best. It is factually not the case.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
On the surface, it is not a Muslim ban, but it is clear that is his thinking. He has made comments that he has a preference to bring in the Christian refugee's rather than those who may be Muslim or follow other religions, this clouds his judgment and creates a clear discrimination.
IT is also known that the Trump Organization has business ties in many of the countries not included on the US Border Entry ban list, this is also something that should be thought more about.
The US has major Trade and other ties to the countries that are not on the US Border Entry ban list. Something also to think more deeply about.
Finally Refugee's MUST be accepted by ALL countries that have signed and ratified The Genevea Convention and others concerning Refugee's, by not accepting refuggee's the US is now breaking those International Treaties.
How can it be "clear that is his thinking" when most muslims in the world can still travel to the U.S.? What you are saying makes no sense. The U.S. lets more refugees resettle within its borders than any other country on earth (71% of all refugees in 2009, the last year I could find the statistic). Between 2013 and 2015 the U.S. resettled in excess of 200,000 refugees. Despite this executive order, Trump still plans to allow 50,000 refugees to resettle in the U.S. in 2017 (around half of what was originally planned). The U.S. may have Geneva convention obligations but it more than fulfills them. In addition, under those Geneva convention rules, asylum seekers have to actually reach U.S. territory to claim asylum. The U.S. is not obligated to go and bring them. If you want to find countries avoiding their Geneva convention responsibilities then I invite you to research why thousands of asylum seekers have been crossing the Mediterranean Sea.
Maybe I'm just getting too much from the media coverage, Muslim ban, Muslim ban, evil Islam, evil Muslims... do you see where this can lead to that type of thinking.
Have you heard of Turkey? That country has let more refugees settle than the US over many years has. Currently there are more than 3 MILLION refugees either settled or being prepared for settlement there, in a country of only 80 Million people. How many million people does the US have? An allowance of 50 thousand refugees for an entire year is disgraceful for a country of it's size.
Certainly there is discontent in the Turkish population, but there is also support, and many new businesses opened by refugees whom Turkey accepted. There are also many unfortunately who so it as only a temporary place as the goal is to get to Europe for a perceived better life, so they risk there lives to get to Cyprus or Greece by crossing the Mediteranian Sea.
Yes refugees have to reach US soil to claim asylum, The US claims that the pre-clearance areas at border entry points are US soil therefore those reaching the border must under Geneva Convention agreements be at least considered. It is NOT possible to blanket ban people from a particular country from possible asylum even temporarily.
I understand the perception is bad but facts outweigh perception. This has nothing to do with 'all ' Muslims being evil, it has to do with a certain subset of radicals that are and maybe not being able to distinguish between the two in a group of refugees or other immigrants. In addition to the large number of other immigrants the U.S. allows every year, the U.S. accepts about 85,000 refugees every single year and admitted a record number of Muslim refugees in 2016. The U.S. accepts about 1,000,000 immigrants overall every single year. The U.S. and any other country can certainly ban all people from a certain country if it deems there to be a security risk. Nobody has the automatic right to enter another country. If the U.S. deems Syria, for example, to be a security risk, they can accept more refugees from elsewhere instead. As far as the Geneva convention, I don't know all the details but countries all over the world, particularly in Europe, use severe Visa restrictions to make it very difficult for people to enter despite the Geneva Convention. I'm not sure that it is particularly easy for people to reach these pre-clearance points or at what point they have to be considered. Syrian refugees, for example, ultimately get here because the U.S. brings them here.
Don't get me wrong, I think immigration and accepting refugees is a good thing and a benefit to the U.S. as well as to those immigrating. However, security concerns have to be addressed as well and I think there may be some legitimate ones here. All that Trump has thus far attempted to implement is a very temporary on ban to evaluate the screening process. Now maybe this is just a political stunt or maybe there are some legitimate concerns, I don't know. But on the surface, it doesn't sound unreasonable and all these other crazy claims about Trump's business interests being involved or banning all Muslims are not helpful. Those false claims are what has the world hating us, not the facts.
I think it is pretty obvious that the intention here is to block access to countries that could contain radicals. He doesn't need to mention the word Muslim. He is a backward bigot, his entire campaign revolved around fear mongering. I see he's just signed an order - in a state i can't recall - giving husbands permission to stop their wives from having abortions, it does;t have to say he is revoking women's rights to be doing exactly that. Same applies to the travel ban. It is obviously focused on Muslims and most majority muslim countries have been banned, not Indonesia however which just so happens to be a place his companies do a lot of business.
Yes, it is certainly focused on countries that contain radicals, particularly the likes of ISIS with the premise being that the current background checks are not sufficient to assure, for example, that members of ISIS are not posing as refugees. The fact that it is focused on areas with these radicals are is exactly why it doesn't make it a bigoted Muslim ban. If it were, why not add all the other majority muslim countries to the list? There are 49 majority Muslim countries. Trump has banned travel from 7. And to you this constitutes a ban on all Muslims? Does Trump do business in all of those other 42 countries but not in those 7?
I'm not saying that this ban was at all well thought out or even the right thing to do but this is CLEARLY not a ban on Muslims any more than a ban against German travel during World War II was a ban on Christians.
If you're not defending the ban I don't understand why you're coming off so defensive. I'm sure you can tell by the GLOBAL reaction that this feels like a backward move, alienating people and discriminating others based on their differences. I don't want to argue, I think the whole thing is so sad. In my opinion the only long term solution to any of our major problems across the world, whether that's ISIS or climate change is to come together despite our differences and stand for what is right. This ban just splits people further and promotes hatred, whether it's misunderstood or not - that is the reality of what it's done.
I'm not being defensive, I'm being accurate. It's something I wish more people would do when discussing politics as perhaps there would be just a little less division. You just gave some good reasons to be against the ban. There's no reason to make crap up.
If the new US President was really worried about inflow of Terrorists, don't you think he would have included SAUDI ARABIA on the list. It was the home of most of the terrorists that blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11? Could it be because Trump Organization has business ties there? Also in many other countries not on the list, I'm not saying that was the reason but it does bear thinking about. Or could it be that Saudi Arabia has huge business ties with the US (The US imports Oil and Gas, and the US exports weapons?), does the US even trade with the countries on the list?
Yes I believe it is an intentional ban aiming at followers of Islam, as does much of the world outside the US. He has stated that his preference would be to let in refugees who are the minority in majority Muslim countries, this is a clear intention to discriminate against people by religious profiling.
The countries on the list have never been involved with any killing of Americans on US soil yet they are chosen as there may have been ISIS activity there. That is like if suddenly the US stopped selling any type of knife because they could potentially be used to kill a child. It would lead to anger and frustration and eventually hatred of the stupid person who decided this was a great idea. This president has done more damage to the remaining good will felt for the US in a few days than the first year of Obama. Also the media constantly refers to the terrorist group as ISIS or ISIL, neither of these is correct, the group claims to be Islamic but it is most definitely not. In many Islamic countries they are referred to as DAESH and apparently the group hates that as it means they are destroyers. 'Daesh when spoken sounds similar to the Arabic words for "the sowers of discord" (Dahes) or "one who crushes underfoot" (Daes)' Source: goo.gl/JNg9Xr Much of the world has chosen a new enemy and it is unfortunately Islam and its followers. This is playing into what DAESH wants, for the world to tear itself apart until only they remain.
The particular countries he selected were actually not selected by him but under the previous administration. They were already designated as countries of special risk and had certain Visa restrictions before Trump came into office. Yes, it's true that the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi but that is not where groups like ISIS are active today. Again, whether this was the right decision or not, it is very clear that it has nothing to do with his business interests or banning all Muslims (only 7/49 majority Muslim countries are on the list for about 15% of the Muslim population...people can believe what they want all day long but this is factually not a 'Muslim ban') and accusations otherwise are just partisan bitching. By all means criticize his decisions if you don't like them but do so on the merits, not false and otherwise unsubstantiated allegations. My only particular complaint is that he initially included people that already had Visas or other legal status. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with what he did. There are clearly large numbers of people in those countries that seek to do the U.S. harm. The only unknown from my point of view is how good the current screening process is. If it's rock solid, no need for the restrictions (which again, were only temporary anyway). If the process is crap, it needs to be fixed and if it's uncertain it needs to be evaluated. Taken at face value, that's the whole point of the moratorium.