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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.