Send us your...oh wait nevermind

ozwestcoastboy

LPSG Legend
Joined
May 28, 2004
Posts
28,403
Media
0
Likes
451,515
Points
768
Location
Perth (Western Australia, Australia)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Why where those countries excluded...I wonder.
From the NEW YORK TIMES today:
President Trump’s executive order banning travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries is being rightly challenged in the courts for, among other things, its unconstitutional interference with free exercise of religion and denial of due process. Overlooked in the furor is another troubling aspect of the situation: President Trump omitted from his ban a number of other predominantly Muslim nations where his company has done business. This adds further illegitimacy to one of the most arbitrary executive actions in our recent history, and raises significant constitutional questions.

The seven countries whose citizens are subject to the ban are relatively poor. Some, such as Syria, are torn by civil war; others are only now emerging from war. One thing these countries have in common is that they are places where the Trump organization does little to no business.

By contrast, other neighboring Muslim countries are not on the list, even though some of their citizens pose just as great a risk — if not greater — of exporting terrorism to the United States. Among them are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. A vast majority of people living in these countries, like the people living in the seven subject to the immigration ban, are peaceful and law abiding. But these three countries have exported terror to the United States in the past. They accounted for 18 of the 19 terrorists who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attack on American soil (an attack which was directed by another Saudi, Osama Bin Laden, with the assistance of an Egyptian, Ayman al-Zawahri).

These countries, unlike those subject to the ban, are ones where Donald Trump has done business. In Saudi Arabia, his most recent government financial disclosure revealed several limited liability Trump corporations. In Egypt, he had two Trump companies registered. In the United Arab Emirates, he had licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort and a luxury residential development and spa. Some of these entities have since been closed, and others remain active.

A look at other nations with large Muslim populations only reinforces this troubling pattern. Turkey, India and the Philippines could all pose similar risks as the banned countries of origin that concern the president. Yet Mr. Trump has done business in all three places. They, too, are omitted from his list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted15807

jbfly

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Posts
164
Media
0
Likes
42
Points
173
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
From the NEW YORK TIMES today:
President Trump’s executive order banning travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries is being rightly challenged in the courts for, among other things, its unconstitutional interference with free exercise of religion and denial of due process. Overlooked in the furor is another troubling aspect of the situation: President Trump omitted from his ban a number of other predominantly Muslim nations where his company has done business. This adds further illegitimacy to one of the most arbitrary executive actions in our recent history, and raises significant constitutional questions.

The seven countries whose citizens are subject to the ban are relatively poor. Some, such as Syria, are torn by civil war; others are only now emerging from war. One thing these countries have in common is that they are places where the Trump organization does little to no business.

By contrast, other neighboring Muslim countries are not on the list, even though some of their citizens pose just as great a risk — if not greater — of exporting terrorism to the United States. Among them are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. A vast majority of people living in these countries, like the people living in the seven subject to the immigration ban, are peaceful and law abiding. But these three countries have exported terror to the United States in the past. They accounted for 18 of the 19 terrorists who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attack on American soil (an attack which was directed by another Saudi, Osama Bin Laden, with the assistance of an Egyptian, Ayman al-Zawahri).

These countries, unlike those subject to the ban, are ones where Donald Trump has done business. In Saudi Arabia, his most recent government financial disclosure revealed several limited liability Trump corporations. In Egypt, he had two Trump companies registered. In the United Arab Emirates, he had licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort and a luxury residential development and spa. Some of these entities have since been closed, and others remain active.

A look at other nations with large Muslim populations only reinforces this troubling pattern. Turkey, India and the Philippines could all pose similar risks as the banned countries of origin that concern the president. Yet Mr. Trump has done business in all three places. They, too, are omitted from his list.

That's got to be an op-ed piece by the NYT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozwestcoastboy
D

deleted15807

Guest
From the NEW YORK TIMES today:
President Trump’s executive order banning travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries is being rightly challenged in the courts for, among other things, its unconstitutional interference with free exercise of religion and denial of due process. Overlooked in the furor is another troubling aspect of the situation: President Trump omitted from his ban a number of other predominantly Muslim nations where his company has done business. This adds further illegitimacy to one of the most arbitrary executive actions in our recent history, and raises significant constitutional questions.

The seven countries whose citizens are subject to the ban are relatively poor. Some, such as Syria, are torn by civil war; others are only now emerging from war. One thing these countries have in common is that they are places where the Trump organization does little to no business.

By contrast, other neighboring Muslim countries are not on the list, even though some of their citizens pose just as great a risk — if not greater — of exporting terrorism to the United States. Among them are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. A vast majority of people living in these countries, like the people living in the seven subject to the immigration ban, are peaceful and law abiding. But these three countries have exported terror to the United States in the past. They accounted for 18 of the 19 terrorists who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attack on American soil (an attack which was directed by another Saudi, Osama Bin Laden, with the assistance of an Egyptian, Ayman al-Zawahri).

These countries, unlike those subject to the ban, are ones where Donald Trump has done business. In Saudi Arabia, his most recent government financial disclosure revealed several limited liability Trump corporations. In Egypt, he had two Trump companies registered. In the United Arab Emirates, he had licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort and a luxury residential development and spa. Some of these entities have since been closed, and others remain active.

A look at other nations with large Muslim populations only reinforces this troubling pattern. Turkey, India and the Philippines could all pose similar risks as the banned countries of origin that concern the president. Yet Mr. Trump has done business in all three places. They, too, are omitted from his list.

If we think Trump would feel any sense of shame or possess any type of moral compass that would be wrong for this obvious wink at his business dealings vs. his "concern" for terrrorism that would be wrong. Anyone who expected more hasn't been paying attention.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There's a ban on people with green cards and visas. I literally work alongside people who, if they left the country now for any reason, would not be permitted re-entry.
Now that is the great beauty of the free movement principle which many in the UK seem to have opposed and therefore voted to leave the EU. If people know they can travel back and forth they are far less likely to cut ties with their homeland and so may one day go back permanently.

For what its worth, trump seems to have triggered quite a wave of popular support for a policy of banning immigration of certain groups into the UK. Particularly of banning one american called Donald Trump. Which is greatly embarassing the government because they just invited him to visit.

I think what Trump is doing is striking a provocative pose, and then daring politicians to polarise either in agreement or disagreement. He challenges the staus quo by forcing the issue. Its exactly the same as recognising Taiwan, or starting his wall building plans. Even if non of these things come to pass, he has forced a national debate and a reconsideration of everyones positions.
 
Last edited:

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I read that the ACLU successfully got the order blocked.

Not really. It is a bit more complex than that.

There are several court orders out there. One (the one from the Eastern District of New York) stopped the removal/deportation of those that arrived under visas and other valid documents. Another order (Virginia) ordered a TRO and ordered that the attorneys be allowed to meet with their clients.

The Dulles Airport CPB agents appear to be violated the order and barring attorneys access.

The DHS issued a statement saying that those with green cards are still being detained and processed on a case-by-case basis and that their green cards will be dispositive unless there is other information to the contrary.

None of these court orders deal with the thousands of people left stranded in foreign countries or taken off of planes at connecting cities. Nor do any of these deal with the valid visas issued and people who sold everything and were on their way to the airport, now left with nothing on either their old country or here in the USA.

I don't care if you're pro- or anti- Trump... The way this was done, the poor wording, lack of training, lack of detailed instructions to CPB agents, the lack of information to the airlines who have to handle these lawfully visa'd immigrants, is not making the US safer. It is terrible for our image; it is a terrible policy implementation; and is going to be turned into a recruitment video showing the US as anti-Muslim (regardless of whether it is/was meant that way).

The same thing could have been accomplished with a freeze on visa approvals and announcing that all currently approved visas must be completed with their travel within 30 days (or some number of days). Same foreign policy result without the terrible optics.

I don't agree with the policy, no surprise there, but putting that aside... the EO was worded horribly vague and the policy instructions/training to meet that EO were worthless.
 

canuck_pa

Admired Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Posts
2,459
Media
0
Likes
794
Points
333
Location
Beautiful Vancouver Canada
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Last night Canada experienced one of its first terrorist attacks when a man entered a mosque in Quebec City and killed 6 men in prayer and injured 5 others. The attack was not carried out by a Muslim They have a suspect in custody but little information has been released about him or the reason for the attack. A ban on immigration of Muslims would not have prevented this attack. It appears to be home grown terrorism.

Some people are asking if Trump's stance on the immigration of Muslims into the US has made it acceptable to attack Muslims here in Canada. I hope not, but who knows. Every country has evil citizens. And every country is subject to a senseless attack. Its what we do as a society to deal with these attacks and how we heal as a society that will determine our future.
 

coopturn

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Posts
252
Media
0
Likes
141
Points
263
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Today I felt a feeling I've never felt - ashamed. Ashamed to be an American. Today Trump took the one defining quality of America and ripped it to shreds.

We accept people of all faiths and countries. You know...that whole melting pot thing. The Statue of Liberty. Ellis Island. Its what WE do. Sure the world may have issue with where we poke our nose in stuff and maybe start a war or two but nobody has ever faulted us for accepting refugees. That all ended today. America just took a black eye on the world stage that's going to take a while to recover from.

I've seen stories about people who have green cards - people who have FOLLOWED THE IMMIGRATION RULES AND BECOME US CITIZENS - getting turned out of our country at airports across the US. These are people who have the paperwork, who have been background checked, hell some of them have houses and car payments here in the US. These are not sleeper cell terrorists - these are humans who came to American because it was the land of promise.

Making it even worse is the fact that all the "banned" countries represent countries where Trump has no business interests. Saudi Arabia - the country that gave us the 9/11 bombers - totally not on the list. Trump has a very substantial development deal there. Can't ban them.

I read that the ACLU successfully got the order blocked. Thank God. Maybe...just maybe we can start recovering the world wide face we lost today. But even if we can we'll never compensate all those who just got told to go away today.

I'm not ashamed to be an American. I refuse to allow any elected official to rob me of the pride I have in my country. However, I am very ashamed of my government right now. Apart from the legalities of this latest executive order, it's extremely uncharitable and does not reflect who we are as a nation.
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm not ashamed to be an American. I refuse to allow any elected official to rob me of the pride I have in my country. However, I am very ashamed of my government right now. Apart from the legalities of this latest executive order, it's extremely uncharitable and does not reflect who we are as a nation.

Subtle difference, but profound.

I appreciate your differentiating. :)

I can only hope that people see the difference. I sincerely doubt it, as it is o easy to spin the other way.
 

BamaMWM

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Posts
31
Media
1
Likes
242
Points
43
Location
Montevallo (Alabama, United States)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Exactly. Trumpenstein has been baking in the GOP cauldron of bigotry and misogyny for decades now. No one should be fooled. It was never about issues. Hillary won all three debates and came with an extensive resume in public office. Trump came with nothing. And it didn't move the needle at all. Meanwhile back at the ranch 50+ million sat out and didn't vote. Now the new Dark Ages have arrived.[/QUOTE

Hillary lost because she is a crook of he highest order. If you want to be pissed off, ask the DNC why they put up such unelectable scum such as Killary. She laughs on audiotape about getting a child rapist off. Pure evil is she. If the Democrats had put up a real candidate you would have a very different election outcome.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
If you are the victim of a terrorist attack, you will be an incredibly unlucky person.

That wasn't the point though.

It wasn't my point, either.

The point was, people like me would supposedly prefer terrorist attacks to a successful Trump presidency.

Which I denied.