Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

  1. Jan 31, 2017 #41

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

  2. Jan 31, 2017 #42

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    And it never worked well... yet the US keeps trying it.

    How would you feel about Yemen trying to improve education in the US? Would you be happy with that?
    The US is a country, Yemen is a different country.
    Offering help is fine. Forcing help (or "help", as it usually ends) leads to trouble.
     
  3. Jan 31, 2017 #43
    I want to quickly thank everyone involved in this interesting discussion for keeping a level head and debating in good faith. With that in tact we are able to continue these discussions and learn from each other.
     
  4. Jan 31, 2017 #44

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    This is a main point I believe. If Yemen came and offered to help by teaching Islam to the Bible belt, it would surely not be very popular - even less so if forced. Help can only be offered, not imposed. You offer to help with certain things and you might even put conditions for giving the help and the receiver can then decide whether or not it wants the help at whatever price is put on it (e.g., strengthening democratic institutions). But you should work together with the receiver to reach an agreement you can both accept.

    (Of course, this is fairy-tale land. It will be complicated by political situations etc that will botch the implementation - but I believe this is the way you have to try to do it.)

    Good faith ... ehhrrrm ... yes ... good faith. <<quickly hiding the fresh batch of Molotov cocktails and the flamethrower>> :devil::oldeyes:
     
  5. Jan 31, 2017 #45

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I bet you Mentors have a secret bet going on behind our backs on when this thread will go south! :biggrin:

    Zz.
     
  6. Jan 31, 2017 #46

    StatGuy2000

    User Avatar
    Education Advisor

    The fundamental fallacy in your argument above is that the main battleground is between Western nations and Islam (or an extreme version of it). However, as many others, including writer Salman Rushdie and former jihadist-turned anti-extremist activist Maajid Nawaz has stated, the true challenge is between a moderate, progressive form of Islam accepting of modernity and a regressive, extremist version who view all non-Muslims as heathens worthy of either conversion or death, and all other Muslims who disagree with them as apostates deserving of the same fate.

    It is up to the reformers and moderates within the Muslims communities around the world to counter the rhetoric coming from the jihadists like ISIS and al-Qaeda (among others) by providing a counter-narrative. Groups like the Quilliam Foundation (founded by the aforementioned Maajid Nawaz) is just such a group.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank)

    Western countries like the US are secondary players in this struggle, but can do a lot by setting policies and provide support that strengthen groups like Quilliam succeed. In other words, the US needs the Muslim community both within the US and around the world to fight against radical Islamism.

    My contention and concern is that the executive order from Trump (along with the anti-Muslim rhetoric from Trump and his supporters during the election campaign, and afterwards), in addition to stigmatizing an entire group of people, has made the work of groups like Quilliam far more difficult, and has the potential of undoing much of the progress of reformers and activists on this front, by playing into the hands of the propaganda issued by the jihadist groups.
     
  7. Jan 31, 2017 #47
    I know Russ has already responded to this, and I agree with his post, but I would just like to respond to your statement "So why run this ban on a few Muslim countries now? It's pretty obvious logic is not involved". Remember that this action is one of the promises that Trump made during his campaign. I think we've become so use to politicians never following through on their promises that we never expected someone to actually do it.
     
  8. Jan 31, 2017 #48
    People are outraged over nothing, ITS NOT A MUSLIM BAN. it's a temporary restriction on travel from terrorist states. Obama did the same in 2011. It's not unconstitutional, nor is is racist. 7 countries were in the executive order. But the majority of Muslim nations aren't effected.

    Several presidents have done this exact same thing in one form or another. Why is it so outrageous because Trump is holding the pen? Where was the outrage when Obama did it?
     
  9. Jan 31, 2017 #49
    See post #24. Part of the outrage was how it was executed.
     
  10. Jan 31, 2017 #50

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Obama did not do 'the same in 2011'.

    Politico analyzed Trump's pre-emptive ban with Obama's action in 2011. Obama reacted to the arrest of two individuals who were planning to send money, explosives and weapons to al-Qaida. One individual's fingerprints were matched by the FBI to an unexploded IED in Iraq from 2005.

    Obama’s 2011 order put a pause on refugee processing, whereas Trump’s halt in entries applies to all non-U.S. visitors.

    Ref: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

    Why Trump's Muslim ban isn't like Jimmy Carter's actions on Iranians
    http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...umps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/

    Carter was responding after the Iranian students, with support of the government, took hostages of US Embassy staff, in violation of international law.
    AP FACT CHECK: Trump claims on travel ban misleading, wrong
    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...ravel-ban-misleading-085016321--politics.html
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2017
  11. Jan 31, 2017 #51

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    FALSE!

     
  12. Feb 1, 2017 #52

    collinsmark

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I think Jake Tapper sums up the Trump administration's hypocrisy on the use of the word "ban" pretty well.

     
  13. Feb 1, 2017 #53

    PeroK

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    To take a different view of Trump's decisions so far: on immigration, the environment and Mexico. These decisions, in themsleves, may be right or wrong and may benefit or disadvantage America. That, as always, is a matter of opinion. I suspect it's safe to say that for every American who sees Trump as the saviour, there is another who sees him as an enemy.

    But, the thing that characterises Trump so far, in my opinion, is that it's not enough for him to have won the election, be President, make decisions and wield power. He also has to do this in a politically insensitive and antagonistic way.

    He could easily have talked about "tighter border controls" with Mexico. He could easily have quietly done nothing about climate change. He could have simply tightened the existing immigration controls from the countries involved. It's not like prior to Trump it could have been easy for an Iraqi to get a visa or green card, for example. As has been pointed out, there were already special measures in place for these countries.

    Instead, I would say, he seems to want to rub his opponents faces in it. For example, many supporters of Trump will not believe in climate change. But, Myron Ebell, his appointment as head of the EPA has said: "the enviornmental movement is the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world".

    So, Trump is not content with having control over environmental policy and being able to do what he wants. Instead, he feels the need to proverbially kick the environmentalists in the teeth.

    In effect, Trump is going further than simply governing for his own supporters. He is very publicly and aggressively trying to grind the noses of his political opponents and anyone with whom he disagrees into the dirt.
     
  14. Feb 1, 2017 #54

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I will also add that he is verbally abusive, both out of his mouth, and out of his fingers via Twitter. No other US Presidents have stooped so low. This is what is so different this time.

    So naturally, when executive decisions such as this is signed, especially when the effectiveness is seriously under questioned, the reaction will be extreme. This should not come as a surprise.

    Zz.
     
  15. Feb 1, 2017 #55
    Speaking as a retired military member, I find that most people who favor open borders, and no restrictions on immigration, are not very well grounded, if at all, in history, science, or security. A country has to have rules on how to protect that country and it's citizens or you very quickly don't have a country. Deciding who gets in, and how many, is critical to resource management of a country. Screening potential threats before they get into your country is also critical.

    The Washington Post article is correct, the current ban would not have stopped the 9/11 attack. However, current screening methods for travelers from Saudi Arabia apparently have been successful; we haven't been attacked by anyone traveling from there since, which is one of the reasons why Saudi Arabians aren't on the banned country list. While none of the 9/11 terrorists came from those 7 temporarily banned countries, all intelligence agencies, the State Department and the DOD have known for decades about the much higher than normal level of people in those countries how have a fundamental hatred of the U.S. and western culture, the means, and the will to perpetrate acts of extreme violence on us. Now combine that fact with almost non-existent U.S. embassy presence in those countries, and you have very few reliable means to screen people before they get here.

    All Trump's executive order does is instruct all members of the Executive Branch (not the rest of the Federal government!) to cease processing people into this country until we can review, revise, and build a more robust screening system. Yes, that ban may, and probably will, result in the inconvenience and deaths of some people from those countries because they can't come to America. For Americans, while regrettable, that's infinitely preferable to having Americans (Me, you, and our families) killed and injured by terrorists and disaffected immigrants.
     
  16. Feb 1, 2017 #56

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

  17. Feb 1, 2017 #57

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    First of all, I don't believe anyone is advocating an open border policy here. I don't think anyone is that naive.

    Secondly, what you said is speculation, and lacking solid evidence, it also requires the acceptance of the voice of authority, something that Trump has repeatedly thumbed his nose at during his presidential campaign.

    Zz.
     
  18. Feb 1, 2017 #58
    You're right, it is only speculation that someone would be injured or killed if they can't get to America.
    Do you have a problem with accepting the voice of authority of the intelligence agencies about the level of terrorist threat from those seven countries? Having been to many countries in the Middle East, seen what goes on in them, and been on the receiving end of threat briefings, I don't. When an intelligence officer tells you not to go to locations X, Y, or Z because those are known terrorist camp locations, you don't test those statements without orders and a battalion behind you. You're free to discount my personal recollections all you want.
    As for Trump thumbing his nose at various declarations by those agencies, that looks more like skepticism than outright denial of their findings.
     
  19. Feb 1, 2017 #59

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    None of the terror attacks in the last 15 years was done by anyone from the 7 banned countries. The screening methods have been 100% effective for all countries on the ban list. There are other countries where they were not 100% effective.

    It is not just a delay in "processing people". It blocks people that were "processed" already from entering the US again. It blocks people currently living in the US from making holidays elsewhere because they would not be allowed to get back in.
    I don't get the impression that Trump wants to make a better screening system.
    The numerous deaths in those countries are not speculations. They are real. The threat by those people, on the other hand, is imaginary. See the empty list of terror attacks from people from there.
     
  20. Feb 1, 2017 #60

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I have no problems in accepting the voice of authority. That has never been the issue here. Instead, it has been the issue for Trump, and what you call "skepticism", I call "thumbing his nose". He has dismissed and belittled intelligence reports, majority scientific consensus on the enviroment/climate, and many more. So it is rather ironic that now, we are being asked to take his word for it that these measures will make us safe. What was it based on if he has such low regards for what has come out of the State Dept. and other military intelligence? The downgrading of the Joint Chiefs in his National Security advisors is one such sign.

    Zz.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries
  1. In a certain country (Replies: 8)

  2. Cross country move in US (Replies: 16)

Loading...