News US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
In the state on NC..Barack Obama and his administration did the same thing and did it too the same countries.
FALSE!

President Donald Trump defended his sweeping immigration policy by calling it “similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” That’s a faulty comparison.

There was a delay in processing Iraqi refugees in 2011 after it was discovered that two Iraqi refugees living in Kentucky had been involved in roadside bombing attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. One of the refugee’s fingerprints were found on a detonation device in Iraq, prompting U.S. immigration, security and intelligence agencies to use federal databases to rescreen about 58,000 Iraqi refugees in the U.S. and more than 25,000 Iraqis who had been approved to enter the U.S., but had not yet been admitted, Department of Homeland Security officials testified at the time.

The Kentucky case not only caused a backlog in processing Iraqi refugees in 2011, but it also resulted in an overhaul of the refugee screening process.

The Obama administration’s actions were limited to one country and in response to a specific threat — the potential for other Iraqi refugees to take advantage of a flaw in the screening process.

By contrast, Trump ordered a far wider ban — albeit also temporary — without identifying a specific threat.
 

collinsmark

Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,764
1,126
People are outraged over nothing, ITS NOT A MUSLIM BAN. it's a temporary restriction on travel from terrorist states.
I think Jake Tapper sums up the Trump administration's hypocrisy on the use of the word "ban" pretty well.

 

PeroK

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
9,876
3,687
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.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,113
3,922
In effect, Trump is going further than simply governing for his own supporters. He is very publically and aggressively trying to grind the noses of his political opponents and anyone with whom he disagrees into the dirt.
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.
 
94
29
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.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,113
3,922
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.
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.
 
94
29
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.
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.
 
33,373
9,098
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.
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.
You're right, it is only speculation that someone would be injured or killed if they can't get to America.
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.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,113
3,922
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.
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.
 
986
122
  • Like
Reactions: Evo

atyy

Science Advisor
13,549
1,643
And the press aids this by calling it an "anti-Muslim ban" even though it only affects about 7% of the world muslim population.
The ban is an anti-Muslim ban because this is Trump making good on his anti-Muslim promises. Certainly, he may have crafted it so that it may pass legal muster, but above the law there is right and wrong intent, and this is clearly on the side of wrong intent.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
US screening methods can not be said to have been "100% effective" for all countries on the seven country list, when it may be that instead domestic law enforcement has been somewhat effective, so far. Recall the Ohio State attacker (Somali refugee) who put 11 people in the hospital in November. Must US action wait for attacks like those which have occured in Europe (several of them from Syria)? The government is not effective or even sovreign in some of those countries. How can vetting be considered to be highly effective as opposed to, say, dependent on law enforcement to remedy entry mistakes?
 
Last edited:

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
The ban is an anti-Muslim ban because this is Trump making good on his anti-Muslim promises. Certainly, he may have crafted it so that it may pass legal muster, but above the law there is right and wrong intent, and this is clearly on the side of wrong intent.
Trump also tossed out during the early campaign his sister (3rd circuit, appeals) would make a "phenomenal" SCOTUS appointment. Does that mean that the nominee Gorsuch is the President's sister?
 

StatGuy2000

Education Advisor
1,634
714
US screening methods can not be said to have been "100% effective" for all countries on the seven country list, when it may be that instead domestic law enforcement has been somewhat effective, so far. Recall the Ohio State attacker (Somali refugee) who put 11 people in the hospital in November. Must US action wait for attacks like those which have occured in Europe (several of them from Syria)? The government is not effective government in some of those countries. How can vetting be considered to be highly effective as opposed to, say, dependent on law enforcement to remedy entry mistakes?
mheslep, implicit in your assumption above is that somehow, all people from the seven countries on that list (assuming that the Trump administration is satisfied will be the final list, and not just a trial run to be expanded to include more countries) are potential terrorists or criminals in the making. That is in effect making an unwarranted, sweeping judgement on entire groups of people based solely on their ethnic or national origin -- the very definition of racism.

As for the attacks that occurred in Europe that you mention -- none of them have been proven to be linked to Syrian refugees (point me to a reliable source indicating such proof). Even if I grant you that there were some Syrians involved in the attacks in Europe, you cannot therefore conclude that all Syrians are terrorists/criminals or potential terrorists/criminals. By that same logic, all Norwegians are right-wingers (because of Anders Breyvik), all Germans are neo-Nazis and all Russians are Putin supporters, so why not ban all Norwegians, Germans, or Russians from entering the US? But no one seriously proposes this, now do we?

Frankly, you (just like the Trump administration and his supporters -- perhaps you're a Trump supporter?) are resorting to fear-mongering.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,682
However, current screening methods for travelers from Saudi Arabia apparently have been successful; we haven't been attacked by anyone traveling from there since [2011], which is one of the reasons why Saudi Arabians aren't on the banned country list.
A slight correction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack
The perpetrators, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married couple living in the city of Redlands, targeted a San Bernardino County Department of Public Health training event and Christmas party, of about 80 employees, in a rented banquet room. Farook was an American-born U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, who worked as a health department employee. Malik was a Pakistani-born lawful permanent resident of the United States.
Farook and Malik had traveled to Saudi Arabia in the years before the attack. The couple had amassed a large stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and bomb-making equipment in their home.
There are various news reports that include the fact that Farook and Malik traveled to Saudi Arabia, and Malik spent time in Saudi Arabia before marrying Farook.

Since the two were from Pakistan and they had recently visited Saudi Arabia, according to claims by the Trump and his staff, then folks from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should be subject to his executive order.

Current screening methods that apply to persons from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are also applied to the 7 countries listed in Trump's EO.

Trump does have business interests in Saudi Arabia.
 
1,036
774
Perhaps a different thread should be made for my question, but if we have any affected PF members I'd like to hear your perspective. Also, my thoughts are with those people whose life has been made difficult by this. I have quite a few Iranian friends at my school that are at a loss what to do. They often go home between semesters.

-Dave K
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
mheslep, implicit in your assumption above is that somehow, all people from the seven countries on that list...
I neither said nor implied 'all' people do or are anything, nor do I have any assertion at this point about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of this particular immigration order with regards to US security. The United States has long identified countries that pose a risk because of, say, large numbers of foreign fighters. Most recently (2016), from CBP:

...DHS remains concerned about the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States for operational purposes on their own or at the behest of violent extremist groups.
As for the attacks that occurred in Europe that you mention -- none of them have been proven to be linked to Syrian refugees.
Daleel in Germany, and others? If you disagree with the source I'm happy to entertain a better one. See the link on Europe provided above:
...In 2007 Loa'i Mohammad Haj Bakr al-Saqa, a Syrian, was convicted of masterminding the November 2003 truck bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, which killed 57 people. Several other Turkish men, with links to al-Qaeda, were also convicted.

One of the men who carried out the Paris attacks in November 2015 was believed to be Syrian. Ahmad al-Mohammad, 25, blew himself up at the Stade de France stadium. A Syrian passport was found near his body, although the authorities said they believed it was fake. The Paris prosecutor's office said later his fingerprints matched those of a man who arrived on the Greek island of Leros in October, purporting to be a Syrian refugee.

Another of the Stade France suicide bombers was identified as M al-Mahmod, who had also arrived in Leros among refugees. He may have come from Syria although his identity and nationality were never conclusively proved.

In July 2016 Mohammad Daleel, 27, blew himself up outside a wine bar in Ansbach, Germany. Fifteen people were injured. Daleel was a refugee from Syria who had arrived in Germany in 2014 seeking asylum.
 
6,171
1,275
Trump didn't do this to make the US safer. He did it exclusively to cater to his core supporters, who need sweeping, draconian words and actions to feel safe. The "Muslim Ban" was very popular among them during his campaign,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/
and this order is simply about keeping them loyal and supportive. They are his power base.

I've seen three ask-a-Trumper articles about this, and the Trumpers are all extremely pleased. Steve Bannon Ted Cruz calls red state voters "low information people," and Steve Bannon openly admires Trump's ability to appeal to "low information" voters. It's a voter base he felt was previously underrated. This ban is about 'feeding' the "low information people."

Edited to correct misattribution of "low information" concept to Bannon: It originated with Cruz.
 
Last edited:
643
27
Trump didn't do this to make the US safer. He did it exclusively to cater to his core supporters, who need sweeping, draconian words and actions to feel safe. The "Muslim Ban" was very popular among them during his campaign,
Well at least a stricter vetting or licencing process for those who need them.
It all seems over the top when there is this elephant in the room.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aufbauwerk 2045

Reductio ad absurdum:

Perhaps we should just ban entry by everyone? That's the only way to guarantee 100% safe immigration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bob012345

Gold Member
350
35
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executive-order.html?_r=0

And some follow-up news from the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/01/quick-rebuke

In my personal opinion, when I had first heard during the presidential campaign, I had thought that Trump's statements on banning all Muslims from entering the US was just bluster. I was wrong (although Trump did lie when he said "all Muslims" --- he meant only "certain Muslims"), and it outrages me that even a temporary ban as described above could take place in the US.

At least the courts were able to step in to reign in on the worst excesses of such executive orders.
People, like to bandy the word 'lie' around too much. He toned down the rhetoric to mean a ban on people from certain war ravaged regions which are infested with radical terrorist types which is what he did.


No one has an inherent right to enter the U.S., even if granted a visa. Heck, even those with green cards can be detained or deported under certain circumstances. Further, even people granted citizenship have had that citizenship revoked under certain circumstances.

It's a temporary ban and not a permanent statement about immigrants or refugees. Basically, it's a statement that the vetting under the Obama state department shouldn't be trusted.

It all makes sense to me and I utterly reject the moaning about what ISIS might think. People who care what ISIS thinks are clueless and exactly the swamp Trump wants to drain from government. After all, we are going to emasculate ISIS in the end.
 

bob012345

Gold Member
350
35
I never liked this line of arguing. I can't imagine a normal non-radical person getting frustrated that his visa is suspended so he decides to blow himself up with a dozen innocent people. It's unrealistic, and frankly insulting to most people who live in Muslim countries (It's basically saying don't pi** these people off because they'll turn terrorists as result).
I strongly agree. Even if ISIS tries to use politics as a recruitment tool, the government simply cannot let that deter us from doing what policy they believe is best. I'm sure diplomats in the State Dept. quack in their boots with worry over what ISIS thinks, but they are part of the swamp that Trump wants to drain. Trump rightly doesn't give a damn what ISIS thinks, he wants to kill them all.
 

bob012345

Gold Member
350
35
Reductio ad absurdum:

Perhaps we should just ban entry by everyone? That's the only way to guarantee 100% safe immigration.
My understanding is that the Executive Order does temporarily ban all refugees from all countries for resettlement, and all travelers from seven specific countries. It's not that these refugees can't come in after the ban, just not at the moment.
 

bob012345

Gold Member
350
35
You trust the WP to not put spin on the conversation? I don't. Not after their relentless campaign of anti-Trump hit pieces during the campaign. They have little credibility.
Perhaps a different thread should be made for my question, but if we have any affected PF members I'd like to hear your perspective. Also, my thoughts are with those people whose life has been made difficult by this. I have quite a few Iranian friends at my school that are at a loss what to do. They often go home between semesters.

-Dave K
They can wait till after the ban. It's that simple. Sorry, but I'm not willing to ignore the security of all Americans to please your Iranian friends.They should be willing to understand. People can wait a few months.
 

Related Threads for: US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Posted
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • Posted
Replies
16
Views
757
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
129
Views
16K
Replies
125
Views
13K
Replies
33
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top