Wishing assasination on a sitting president is strictly against board rules. Do NOT do this again.
“Earlier this month, GBTA released data showing the dramatic bottom line impact President Trump’s executive order banning travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries has had on business travel. In the week following the ban, approximately $185 million in business travel bookings were lost as the uncertainty surrounding travel in general had a rippling effect on traveler confidence.”
Presumably for the same reasons they’ve always taken the risk. There doesn’t seem to be a showing so far that the risk of Canadians being turned back has actually increased.
Not to mention the fact that President Pence would be a lot worse. At least Trump is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.
But he’s making the economy GREAT again!! He even tweeted about it, so it must be true.
Bolding mine.
If there are cites of this happening (Canadian legal resident not being able to get visa based on citizenship somewhere else) I can’t find them. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but for a large organization to make a blanket decision based on something that A) hasn’t happened; B) would affect a tiny percentage of the members, if any; and C) is something that can be easily determined in advance is the very definition of reactionary.
I don’t find it reactionary at all. There are plenty of cases where people who already have valid visas being turned away at the airport.
I wouldn’t want to take a chance either while traveling with a bunch of kids. At least not until the Trump train stabilizes.
ETA - please understand, I’m not saying that the issue of Canadians being stopped at the boarder has not increased over time - it certainly has. What I am saying is that it spiked shortly after 9/11 and has remained at a steady number (well less than 1%) since then. From a 2015 Boston Globe editorial:
and
It’s security theater and stupid IMHO, but it has been going on for years. Why all the coverage and reaction now if not politics?
Because of the Trump travel ban.
Here you go:
British citizen, born in Britain, teacher, had a visa, accompanying a school trip of kids to NYC.
The group is left shy one chaperone, he was delayed and grilled for ages, and it cost him out of pocket for his airfare. He did everything you claim would remove any concerns. He had every expectation of being admitted, quite reasonably. And still got screwed. Oh, and he’s brown!
If nothing else, the coverage has acted as an enormous advertising campaign for the fact that you can be turned away at the border for an arbitrary reason. Organisations can only act on the information they’re aware of.
Just say for a second that you were just as likely to get knocked back at the border for being called Mohammed last year as this year, but it didn’t make the headlines. Well, in that case, the Scouts wouldn’t have known, and couldn’t make policy based on it. Now they know. And they’re making policy based on what they know.
Exactly. The publicity leads to more people deciding they are not going to even take the chance of something going wrong. It might only be slightly more likely to be excluded or “secondaried”, but the general confidence that if you checked all the right boxes required by law you’d be fine has been lost. So people and organizations prefer to not test their luck, and make it known.
Don’t parade your ignorance. First, there are many guides who were born in banned countries and their policy is that if one is refused none go. Second, just last week there was a case of a woman born in Canada with a Canadian passport interrogated at the border (she was just crossing into VT for an evening’s entertainment) for six hours, fingerprinted, and finally told that she could enter only with an immigrant visa and turned back. Her parents were Indian (I have no idea if she was Muslim). So it makes perfect sense. A local HS just canceled a class trip to Washington and Philadelphia.
I have a daughter in Guides, and I absolutely support this decision.
There are consequences for allowing governance by arbitrary executive orders issued by a president who apparently acts without considering consequences and has appointed a right wing bigot as his closest advisor.
I’m as white as white can be and have travelled to the US at least twice per year for leisure, but I have scrapped plans to do so for the foreseeable future. Like it or not, my view of America and its citizens has been tainted, as has that of many others throughout the world.
If your intent was to educate Doctor Jackson, I think he’ll consider only evidence of rejections of Canadians, not Brits. And a compendium of anecdotes won’t do. He’ll need an audited report comparing current rate of rejection with rejection rate pre-Trump. Include an analysis that any difference is statistically significant.
And I’m not sure examples like your cite would be of any relevance to him anyway. Muslim ban stops Muslim from terrorizing U.S.A. Duh, that’s a success story!!
Perhaps Girl Guides needs to limit its membership to Christians and other acceptable religions, preferably to Christians who look like Christians.
I cannot help it if you choose to ignore facts, but the facts show that there has been no increase in Canadians turned away at the border since shortly after 9/11/2000. To make this a big deal now is simply political posturing.
I’m all for being educated. We can’t affect change if we’re not. However, I do prefer to be educated by facts. We also can’t affect change if we react to the wrong things. Any cites that there has been a recent increase in Canadians turned away at the border? The cites, mostly Canadian news sources, seem to show otherwise. And just to point out, one of the cites has a “report comparing current rate of rejection with rejection rate pre-Trump”, so you won’t need to provide that on your own.
How many Girl Guides do you reckon would have been denied entry per year if they had continued to travel to the US?
zz
Would you care to defend the assertion that the President has given any new rights to mentally ill persons? Or did you just make that up?