One NPR reporter asked, “Why not Saudi Arabia? That’s where Al Queda came from.” But we’re fighting ISIS now. WHat country does ISIS come from?
Why didn't trump ban countries that actually committed terrorist attacks that resulted in US deaths?
Pakistan also was sheltering bin Laden.
What do you mean by “whose terrorist intent would have been stopped”? Do you mean they’d cease to want to be terrorists?
Basically, I’m asking if you’re looking for a cite of terrorists from one of these 7 countries, or something else?
“Countries”? Trump banned countries? Or temporarily suspended-entry/banned people from specific countries?
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
To me the answer is obvious. The counties on the list are weak and with the exception of Iran have no means of retaliating against us, either militarily or economically. Iran could possibly do some military damage, but given the lack of economic ties they don’t have any economic means of retaliation. I mean what could a country like Yemen, Somalia, or Sudan even consider doing? On the other hand, if you consider Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Gulf states, and Pakistan, now you’re talking about countries that have significant economic ties to the US and really could do damage to us if they wanted to. That’s the reason the list is what it is.
Then this is NOT a Muslim ban?
And the LSM is creating fake news by saying that it is?
Yes, agreed that he does and this influenced his decision. Moreover, the countries on the list are less sensitive in terms of American political and economic interests.
My thoughts, too. Sure, Trump has no business interests in those countries, but that’s mainly because NO ONE HAS BUSINESS INTERESTS IN THOSE COUNTRIES. That’s a figurative “no one”, not a literal “no one”. Put such a ban on Saudi Arabia, and the current “chaos” will look like afternoon tea at Buckingham Palace.
But, let’s not pretend this is about keeping us safe, either. It’s a mostly empty gesture so Trump can check one more thing off his list of campaign promises.
Um, cite that they are? Looking around CNN, ABC, and CBS, I don’t see any references to a “Muslim ban”. I see “travel ban”, “immigration order”, and “immigration ban”.
So, which mainstream news media outlets are calling it a “Muslim ban”?
It’s clearly making us much LESS safe. It’s a “gift to extremists.”* It’s a boon to ISIS recruiting efforts and it puts American troops in much greater danger than they were pre-Trump (this along with his ‘why shouldn’t we take their oil?’ remarks, of course).
- The phrase comes from Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif but is being echoed by others. Here’s an excerpt from the reaction of that well-known lefty-publication Forbes:
Really? After Rudy Giuliani spilled the beans on this, you’re still trying to play it this way?
Oooooooookaaay.
I am questioning doorhinge’s claim that the mainstream media is calling this a “Muslim ban”, and/or “creating fake news”.
This seems deliberately obtuse.
Pretend this executive order was in place on January 20, 2001.
List how many terrorist incidents that happened in the United States since then that would have been prevented.
(Apologies to **LHOD ** if this isn’t what you meant)
C’mon, dude, stop playing games. You know that’s not what I meant.
Their intent–the thing they wanted to accomplish–would have been stopped–they wouldn’t have been able to accomplish it.
This order would have made them say, “Curses, foiled again!”
They would have complained, “I woulda gotten away with it, too, if not for that meddling Cheeto!”
I’m unconvinced that you’re seriously trying to understand the question–are you? Don’t look for ways to interpret it that are obviously stupid, try to understand what it’s asking.
My apologies, then. I should have addressed my post to doorhinge.
It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg question. It has been suggested that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan were excluded from the list of countries with restrictions because Trump does (or has done) business with them. But maybe Trump has done business with them because they aren’t as dangerous?
It’s like accusing someone of declaring certain plants poisonous and others as safe because they don’t eat the ones that were declared poisonous and they’re biased. But it’s more likely that they just don’t eat poisonous food.
I personally believe that this is a dog-and-pony show to satisfy his long-time supporters. You know how hung up Trump is on his image. He originally claimed that he would ban all Muslims from entering the country. He has since compromised hard on that claim since doing that would have been insane (not “nobody likes it” insane but “alienate everyone that matters and probably get shut down by the Supreme Court” insane). So instead of banning people of Muslim faith, just certain countries who happen to have large Muslim populations. A list of countries previously identified as risky. And rather than a travel ban, it’s just stopping refugees. And rather than an actual ban it’s a 4 month suspension, and even that is under the guise of ensuring that the vetting process is thorough before lifting the suspension.
So it’s a huge compromise that has at least the veneer of reason to it. I still find it reprehensible though because (A) we know the process is extremely thorough already so it’s redundant, (B) we’ve yet to see our refugee program let in someone who later committed an act of terror against the US and finally © this will impact the lives of many people who desperately need our help just to give a wink and a nod to his supporters who are scared of secret Jihadists sneaking into the country through refugee camps.
Donald has been telling everyone for years now that Obama is stupid and a lousy leader. How on earth is it exculpatory for the Republicans that they relied on a random list from five years ago when they instituted this security theater ban and started a constitutional crisis by encouraging Customs officials to defy a Federal Judge?
Now, after years of Donald telling us how smart he is and how he’s hiring the best people and he’s so much better than stupid Obama - he trots out this cowardly bit of butt-covering.
“Oh - it’s Obama’s list!” like that excuses either the stupidity in choosing this list or the damaging way in which it’s been implemented.
It’s not surprising that Donald’s admin would trot out this this latest piece of “Thanks, Obama!” bullshit, and not surprising that his fans would eagerly grasp this straw, but rational people should focus on forcing them to answer why they relied on this particular five-year old list and not on current intelligence, and how that does not excuse their shitty implementation.
This is certainly true. However, far better to report it than junior mod. No warning, but please avoid such in the future.
As mentioned, this is not a good idea. Don’t do it again.
OK, thanks, that makes more sense to me now.
Though if people from these countries need to apply for and be granted a visa before being allowed in to the US that seems to stand at odds with Trump’s reason for the sudden and immediate EO, to wit:
[Quote=Trump via Twitter]
If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the “bad” would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad “dudes” out there!
[/quote]