Refugees/Citizens of Muslim Countries Barred

[Claire. 23,729]

Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries

President Trump on Friday closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world, ordering that families fleeing the slaughter in Syria be indefinitely blocked from entering the United States, and temporarily suspending immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.

In an executive order that he said was part of an extreme vetting plan to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists,” Mr. Trump also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.

Read more: The New York Times

[Claire. 23,729]

If the ban is indeed based primarily on security concerns, then why were countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Unite Arab Emirates excluded? I guess when you've got a golf club in Dubai and a hotel venture in Saudi Arabia....

[Farmer77 24,047]

1 minute ago, Claire. said:

If the ban is indeed based primarily on security concerns, then why were countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Unite Arab Emirates excluded? I guess when you've got a golf club in Dubai and a hotel venture in Saudi Arabia....

Yeah thats just insulting. I have to be honest I can't argue with banning immigration from muslim nations. You cant ban the religion itself because muslims have permission to lie to infidels in order to further their cause so banning the religion from entering would be a waste of time but damn if you're gonna claim to be doing something for security - DO IT ALL THE WAY.....as is this seems like a purely political move. 

[Kurzweil 1,632]

Conflict of interest.

[Lilly 34,331]

When talking about being able to vet people then it actually does make sense that countries that are active war zones would be the ones in question. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, Dubai are not active war zones...we can vet those people much easier. No one is saying that Radicals can't come from those countries but the ability to check people out is far better.

As for the Christian thing...look into how many Christians from these war zones have been allowed entry into the United States. I'll give you a hint, it's very low. The Christian people in these areas  are the ones ISIS despises/targets the most...so why have their numbers (entering the US) been so low?  

 

Edited January 28, 2017 by Lilly
bad link removed

[third_eye 33,143]

Renders an entirely new dimension to the term 'Collateral Damage' on the stage of military conflicts ...

~

Edited January 28, 2017 by third_eye
I dunno what's wrong with me

[GlitterRose 25,102]

2 hours ago, Claire. said:

If the ban is indeed based primarily on security concerns, then why were countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Unite Arab Emirates excluded? I guess when you've got a golf club in Dubai and a hotel venture in Saudi Arabia....

Glaring reasons why he needs to divest.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons 9,301]

 

Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties

[GlitterRose 25,102]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

When talking about being able to vet people then it actually does make sense that countries that are active war zones would be the ones in question. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, Dubai are not active war zones...we can vet those people much easier. No one is saying that Radicals can't come from those countries but the ability to check people out is far better.

As for the Christian thing...look into how many Christians from these war zones have been allowed entry into the United States. I'll give you a hint, it's very low. The Christian people in these areas  are the ones ISIS despises/targets the most...so why have their numbers (entering the US) been so low?  

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/

It probably has something to do with it that there is a very small percentage of Christians in these countries. 

Indeed, people who are at greater risk for persecution over several factors, including religion and sexual orientation, are given top priority. They have always been given top priority. That's not something new that Trump made up. He's just the only one who announced to the world that he is particularly favoring Christians over Muslims. That's what's new. 

Edited January 28, 2017 by ChaosRose

[GlitterRose 25,102]

1 minute ago, Daughter of the Nine Moons said:

 

Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties

Of course it does. Were we thinking something else would happen? 

It boggles my mind that the American people thought he would put their interests above his. 

[Thorvir 13,942]

Does the US not put travel bans to and from countries that have virulent outbreaks of disease?  Is that not done to protect US citizens and keep the contagions from spreading to the US?  Radical islamist terrorism is like a disease....it spreads, it kills innocents and it's hard to cure--it will harm US citizens that are exposed to it, just like a disease.  Banning travel to and from places there that "disease" can be brought back to the US is just common sense, until a "cure" can be achieved.

[Lilly 34,331]

1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

It probably has something to do with it that there is a very small percentage of Christians in these countries. 

 

Well, their numbers are becoming smaller and smaller: http://www.newsweek.com/christians-face-purge-syria-413463

Christians are being targeted and killed in record numbers. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/magazine/is-this-the-end-of-christianity-in-the-middle-east.html?_r=0

Edited January 28, 2017 by Lilly
addition

[Lilly 34,331]

Also, the idea that Trump only excluded certain countries simply because of his businesses isn't completely accurate. Those countries also happen to be stable (not currently involved in wars) where any immigrants coming from them can readily be checked out and properly vetted.

[GlitterRose 25,102]

6 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Also, the idea that Trump only excluded certain countries simply because of his businesses isn't completely accurate. Those countries also happen to be stable (not currently involved in wars) where any immigrants coming from them can readily be checked out and properly vetted.

I remember a huge deal was made out of contributions to charity from some of those places that weren't excluded (and that was charity from which the Clintons didn't earn a dime). Now, it's totally ok they aren't excluded, and you've come up with some smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the fact that it's about Trump actually profiteering. 

[Claire. 23,729]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

When talking about being able to vet people then it actually does make sense that countries that are active war zones would be the ones in question. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, Dubai are not active war zones...we can vet those people much easier. No one is saying that Radicals can't come from those countries but the ability to check people out is far better.

As for the Christian thing...look into how many Christians from these war zones have been allowed entry into the United States. I'll give you a hint, it's very low. The Christian people in these areas  are the ones ISIS despises/targets the most...so why have their numbers (entering the US) been so low?  

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/

Lilly, sorry but the link you posted does not work for me. I get a Not Found message.

From the NYT article I cited: In fact, the United States accepts tens of thousands of Christian refugees. According to the Pew Research Center, almost as many Christian refugees (37,521) were admitted as Muslim refugees (38,901) in the 2016 fiscal year.

[Clarakore 3,452]

Quote

Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani student activist and Nobel Peace laureate, said she was “heartbroken” by Donald Trump’s order on refugees and urged the US President not to abandon the world’s “most defenseless.”

“I am heartbroken that today President Trump is closing the door on children, mothers and fathers fleeing violence and war,” said the 19-year-old, shot in the head by the Taliban in 2012 after publicly advocating education for girls in her home country.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/Nobel-Peace-winner-Malala-‘heartbroken’-by-Trump-order/article17107585.ece

OMG Trump is making Malala cry.

[Lilly 34,331]

4 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Lilly, sorry but the link you posted does not work for me. I get a Not Found message.

From the NYT article I cited: In fact, the United States accepts tens of thousands of Christian refugees. According to the Pew Research Center, almost as many Christian refugees (37,521) were admitted as Muslim refugees (38,901) in the 2016 fiscal year.

That's odd (about the link). I have no idea what happened there.

As for the Christian refugees, in the last year their numbers have increased but only very recently.

[Claire. 23,729]

Just now, Lilly said:

That's odd (about the link). I have no idea what happened there.

As for the Christian refugees, in the last year their numbers have increased but only very recently.

Are you able to cite the stats presented in that article? If not, don't worry about it.

[Sakari 9,986]

Good for him! ......This is just one of the reasons the people of the United States voted him as our President. So far, he is following through on everything that helped get him into office. Can't say that about past Presidents.

[Lilly 34,331]

Even John Kerry (last time I checked he was a Democrat) states that Christians have been targeted by ISIS in Iraq and Syria: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/john-kerry-isis-genocide-syria-iraq

[Claire. 23,729]

17 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Also, the idea that Trump only excluded certain countries simply because of his businesses isn't completely accurate. Those countries also happen to be stable (not currently involved in wars) where any immigrants coming from them can readily be checked out and properly vetted.

I don't for a moment believe that immigrants from a war-torn country are more difficult to vet. The fact of the matter is that unless someone has made a ripple anywhere in the Middle East, everyone coming from that area (or any other area for the matter) would be a challenge. The vetting process already takes two to three years, and even then there is no guarantee that a terrorist will not slip through the cracks.

As for Christians being targeted in Syria, no one is disputing that. But to give one religion priority over another is shameful.

[Lilly 34,331]

Here are some statistics: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/syrian-refugees-united-states#ReligionLanguage

Ninety-eight percent of the Syrian refugees resettled in the United States were Muslim and about 1 percent Christian. The resettled population had a lower rate of Christians in comparison to the overall population in Syria, where approximately 10 percent of residents are Christian. There have been no systematic explanations for this difference yet

[Lilly 34,331]

2 minutes ago, Claire. said:

I don't for a moment believe that immigrants from a war-torn country are more difficult to vet. The fact of the matter is that unless someone has made a ripple anywhere in the Middle East, everyone coming from that area (or any other area for the matter) would be a challenge. The vetting process already takes two to three years, and even then there is no guarantee that a terrorist will not slip through the cracks.

As for Christians being targeted in Syria, no one is disputing that. But to give one religion priority over another is shameful.

In a war torn area common information such as: criminal records, political affiliations, point of original origin, associations of any type are difficult to determine.

Yes, and giving Muslim refugees priority (over Yazidi and Christians that ISIS utterly despises) is shameful as well.  

[Clarakore 3,452]

Quote

The 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt & UAE--not the 7 nations in the immigration ban. These all do have Trump properties though.

--George Takei

 

[Claire. 23,729]

Just now, Lilly said:

In a war torn area common information such as: criminal records, political affiliations, point of original origin, associations of any type are difficult to determine.

Yes, and giving Muslim refugees priority (over Yazidi and Christians that ISIS utterly despises) is shameful as well.  

My point Lilly is that no one should be given priority based on religion. Religion should not be a test for immigration.

As for common information (such as the types you've listed) not being available, I would argue that if potential immigrants from the ban-exempt countries wanted to have such information erased, altered, or entirely fabricated, they could quite easily do so. Amazing what a few million bucks tossed in the right direction can accomplish.