Not disagreeing with you that these attackers came from other countries in the past, but I think the whole point with these 7 is that refugees are going to be far more likely to come from these than any other Islamic country atm (well, excepting Iran). Also, I’d be willing to bet the economics had a large part in the…
Not Trump’s fault that the Obama administration was weak on vetting.
No, I’d prefer “Travel ban on *anyone* from these 7 countries”. Because yes, despite what you may hear, Christians, atheists, Muslims, everyone from these countries are subject to the travel ban. Yes, Trump wants to give priority to Christian refugees *after* the travel ban. But as for the ban, I think “Travel Ban”…
You understand that is AFTER the temporary 90 day travel ban, yes?
Says the guy who thinks “racism” is an argument to banning multiple countries on different continents with different races of people in them.
This is a funny argument, because Trump’s businesses are typically purveyors of real estate and entertainment. You can’t honestly imagine a glitzy “TRUMP resort, golf course, and spa” in the middle of the sparse Libyan desert, or in run-down Mogadishu, right?
You are correct about that, though it was determined by the US State Dept in 2016 as a “state sponsor of terrorism”, which might have earned it a spot on this list.
I can understand where you’re coming from, but I like to think that intent doesn’t really matter when the end result (be it a law, or an executive order) doesn’t really end up matching the original idea. Assuming DJT did want to completely shut down Muslim entry into the United States, it’s pretty clear this order…
Ostensibly, the new Trump Administration thinks they should be able to properly vet Saudis, I would imagine.
Well it can’t be racism, because ‘Somali’ is not a race, nor is ‘Iraqi’, so I’m thinking that one is out.
And it just so happens that the majority of terrorism in the past couple decades has also been majority Muslim, which is the entire point of focusing on Muslim countries with large scale terror groups such as ISIS. In the future, I’m hoping there shouldn’t be a need for this travel ban, that we should be able to vet…
I should also point out that this is one of the only times that liberals have taken Rudy Giuliani’s words at face value. This is the guy who famously said that there had been no Islamic terror attacks on US soil until Barack Obama was President.
After the travel ban ends, yes. Well, not technically only Christian. It will prioritize the entry of any refugee who claims religious persecution, as long as that person is of *any* religion which is a minority religion in the country from which the refugee hails.
Well good on you. Now if you can put two and two together, you might make four and realize the reason for this travel ban.
Iran is the only one of the seven that isn’t in constant political upheaval and/or civil war and you goddamn well know it.
Alas, my edit came too late, and you immediately pulled the bigot card. Go look at my last comment again, and you’ll see the edit.
That’s because the media has a hard-on for anything remotely anti-Trump, and they’ve latched on the phrase of “Muslim Ban” despite the fact that the so-called ban only targets a few smaller Islamic countries.
I hope they do keep pushing, tbh.
Don’t really give a shit about what Giuliani says, the *reality* of the situation, not words, is that specific countries (i.e. failed states with large terror presence) were targeted for this ban due to the potential for terrorist immigration from these countries with little way of being able to vet them.
If you’re…