Could you elaborate on how you think it “endangers and weakens America”? I understand why you called it an “awful, inhumane, bigoted, and unAmerican policy” earlier. I probably disagree with much of your reasons, but I can understand them. In this case though, I don’t see how it “endangers” or “weakens” America. Could you explain your thinking there?
Why didn't trump ban countries that actually committed terrorist attacks that resulted in US deaths?
OK, given that Trump’s administration got the list from a bill Obama supported and passed, the original question remains, why didn’t trump ban countries that actually committed terrorist attacks that resulted in US deaths?
Yep.
This is false: Ohio State University attack - Wikipedia
ETA: You should pay closer attention to the parsing. You got the “in this country” part (to exclude refugee attacks in other countries) but you left out “fatal” or “major”.
Because everyone agrees that these 7 countries are of particular concern?
There are upwards of a billion (or more) peaceful Muslims around the world who want nothing more than to live their lives, support their families, and be comfortable and peaceful. They already hate ISIS and other violent Muslim extremists. In order to defeat such extremism, we will need their cooperation – it will be essentially impossible to defeat extremism (to the point where it ceases to be a significant force in world events) in the Muslim world without the cooperation of the great mass of peaceful and decent and reasonable Muslims.
This kind of policy won’t push most of them towards ISIS, but it might push many away from us. They will be less likely to see us as allies, and may even start to be afraid of us. Many might retreat into the shadows, refusing to assist in the fight with or against ISIS, when with tolerant and compassionate policies they might aid us against the extremists. It definitely feeds the rhetoric (and the desires) of ISIS and other extremists, who want Muslims to see the West in general as their enemies. Those small but significant number on the edge – who already strongly dislike and fear America, but still don’t want to be involved in violence – might be more likely to decide to embrace violence.
I don’t see the two sides as the West and Islam, or the West and the terrorists, but rather the pro-religious-world-war and anti-religious-world-war side. This kind of policy helps ISIS – they want America to do all they can to make Muslims everywhere angry (and state this publicly) – and, in my view, aids the pro-religious-war faction (represented in the administration and its supporters by folks like Michael Flynn, Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Pamela Gellar).
It’s similar to racist extremists in the US – both the Charleston black-church shooter and black extremists like the one who killed cops in Dallas are on the pro-race-war side, even if on the surface they seem to be in direct opposition. They both want the same thing – a giant conflict between white people and black people. Similarly, both ISIS and American anti-Muslim extremists want the same thing – a giant world war between the West and Islam.
He was only 9 when his family left Somalia.
How come no one ever comes up with a case of an actual terrorist-at-the-time who managed to sneak in?
ETA
For the same reasons that Presidents Bush and Obama didn’t. Even if it isn’t directly Trump’s money, American business interests won’t allow their pet congress critters to do so.
This is not my area, but not really. Since the mid-80s, there hasbeen a list of countries whose citizens do not need visas to enter the United States (the “VWP”). I think there are about 40 countries. There are various requirements for your passport and you need to fill out a form with CBP 72 hours in advance of arrival. There may be other requirements, but the point is that there is substantially less individualized vetting of these folks than traditional visa applicants.
The 2015 Act altered the VWP to omit people (from VWP-eligible countries) who had traveled to countries of concern. The original list included “Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan” and DHS later added “Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.”
As I understand it, the Act wouldn’t have changed the vetting of citizens of those countries, since they wouldn’t be VWP-eligible in the first place. Instead, it was concerned with (for example) a British citizen who traveled to Yemen. So it restored “standard vetting” to nationals of “safe” countries based on their visits to “unsafe” countries.
The 2017 Trump EO took this list of “countries of concern” and applied it to nationals of those countries (who would not have been affected by the 2015 Act – since they would have to apply for visas anyway). It’s a different application of the list, but it’s based on (allegedly) similar concerns about what countries pose a risk.
I could be wrong about all of that, but I think that’s how it works.
You mean like 9/11?
From the four countries not named in Cheeto’s order.
I’m just trying to figure out what you’re asking. At first you claimed “no refugee has committed an act of terrorism in this country”. When I showed you that you were wrong on that point, you asked about “a case of an actual terrorist-at-the-time who managed to sneak in”. What are you talking about here? Refugees specifically? People from those 7 countries? Refugees from those 7 countries? What are you calling “sneak in”? Do you mean they have to have come across the border illegally? Or is someone like the female San Bernardino shooter a valid example?
I’m not fooled by your “confusion”.
The fear is that a terrorist will sneak in pretending to be a refugee. Somehow claiming a small child is a terrorist is just way beyond ridiculous.
She was not a refugee, she was the wife of an American-born. Cheeto’s order would not have stopped her as she was not a refugee and she was not from a country on his list.
Again, he did not ban travel from countries that have produced terrorists
that have killed Americans and banned travel from countries that have not.
(underline added)
Trump didn’t ban any countries.
Are you asking the Trump WH to expand the list to include your favorites?
Yeah, he did.
Or are you playing the “alternative facts” game?
:rolleyes:
You are way way way too late if you think this is going to convince “peaceful and decent and reasonable Muslims” that the US is bad news. Invasions of 4 Muslim countries did that. Drone strikes, kill matrices, torture centres, Gitmo, “random selection” at airports did that well before Donald Trump came down that damn escalator.
Most people don’t have much time for ISIS or AQ or the Taliban. That does not mean that they approve of the US’s role in the region. Its not a binary choice. This decision is not going to make people believe in ISIS/AQ/Taliban’s propaganda; no matter what some hysterical western commentators may say. Unlike what you may think, people are able to see the lack of merits in the claims made by the militants on their own. Nor is this going to raise much more dislike of the United States Government policy and role, that ship sailed years ago. That does not mean that they are going to be motivated to attack the US/US Interests. Indeed the San Bernardino and Orlando attackers seemed to have multiple reasons, including personal ones for attacking.
The United States government in the region has been as ugly as Trump has/is being. Trump has just dispensed with the pleasantries.
I think real world actions can have consequences, even if past actions were significant. So yes, I don’t think all Muslims everywhere have 100% made up their mind about this or any issue such that their minds might not change to some degree in the future. Thus, American policy still can have some effect on how people around the world think of America.
You shouldn’t use that “alternative facts” phrase. It is considered an accusation of lying.
Here’s the request: show a terrorist whose terrorist intent would have been stopped had an order like this been put in place.
If this order stops imaginary attacks, it’s a Kraken Deterrent Buoy.
I thought the country that was to give them passage to the Holy Land wanted more than the Crusaders could afford, and payment was made in kind by invading Constantinople, a rival in trade.