Trump: The Protests & Petition - Discuss

[Spud1]

We cannot identify terrorists, what we do know is terrorists are faithful to their version of the Islamic Faith* so Trump is essentially targeting Muslims. As bad as it sounds, what other choice does he have?

Be very careful with this kind of statement/question - remember that there is absolutely no relationship between muslims and "terrorism" (in fact the word terrorism really annoys me but that's another topic!) and that there are just as many "terrorist" groups out there from other, or no faiths.

This is one of the big things that annoys people and will trigger them expressing their opinion - the assumption that someone who is different could be a terrorist...when in reality anyone anywhere could be part of such a group and commit an atrocity.

The sort of action trump has taken will only serve to grow hatred for America and therefore recruit more people to any western causes, it does a lot more harm than good. You also have to remember that the vast majority of border security is for show and to deter casuals (
Like most security!) - whether it's immigration, anti narcotics, anti weapons...especially in a country the size of America, any organsatiom with a bit of money can smuggle someone or something in by just not using an airport or port. It's a big enough problem in the uk and we have a tiny border to control..the US doesn't have a way to monitor every single inch of coast.

I could type all day about how angry he makes me and how pointless it is, but then that would be pointless too I guess

[opel80uk]

Why not Saudi? Or Pakistan, for that matter?

Because, as I understand it, the Saudi and Pakistani governments cooperate with the US, UK etc, on in-depth vetting of visa applicants. The governments on the 'banned seven' do not, or cannot.

So .... if the objective is about keeping undesirable, questionable or known risky individuals OUT, then in the absence of cooperation on in-depth vetting, letting those nations in is a complete punt.

What Trump said on the campaign was, paraphrasing, "keep Muslims out until we can sort out what the hell is going on".

The policy interpretation of that appears to be to temporarily prevent individuals from the banned seven, while .... according to the White House .... sorting out the extreme vetting issues.

And, after all, with ISIS being driven back in Syria and Iraq, among others, the notion of some of the foreign fighters that went there to fight for ISIS leaving and seeking to go elsewhere to cause mayhem is entirely plausible, if not actually probable.

While I doubt even Trump would guarantee that this 'ban' will keep ALL terrorists out, it's hard to argue that a real threat doesn't exist, and that if this measure, affecting people for whom extreme vetting has been hard or impossible, then in the interests of protecting US citizens, at home, prevents even some getting in, then at least as a stop-gap temporary measure, it's HIS call to make.

I wonder if that famous "The Buck Stops Here" plaque still sits on the desk in the Oval? Because now, the buck stops with Trump, and if there is a successful attack, he'll have to justify having done everythinv he could to prevent it.

A real threat DOESN'T exist, not in the US at least. According to the BBC, Islamists have killed 94 people in the States since 9/11. That's just over 6 a year, and that number is fairly consistent with pre 9/11 numbers too (and we all know that the places the 9/11 hijackers came from are the lads you listed as 'cooperating with the US and in the case of the Saudi's, had a security deal in place already a the time of the attacks'), and that was without the supposed 'Extreme Vetting'. Even if a 9/11 happened every year, a US citizen would still be far, far more likely to be killed by a non-terrorist gun attack, car accident, or swimming in a swimming pool then they would by a foreign led terrorist attack.
If someone said the UK would spend this amount of money and resources (specifically extreme vetting) on something that killed 6 people a year, what would you say? Because as it stands at the time of Trump bringing in the order, that's exactly what was happening in the US. And of course, that's ignoring the fact that numerous people, from both sides of the Political divide in the States, have said that this type of policy makes the US more vulnerable to attack, not less.

So yes, it is his call to make. But the idea that Donald Trump of all people can, 'sort out what the hell is going on', when terrorism in some form or another has been part of the human way of life since we left caves, makes me laugh and cry in equal measure. It's absurd.

[kalniel]

So yes, it is his call to make. But the idea that Donald Trump of all people can, 'sort out what the hell is going on', when terrorism in some form or another has been part of the human way of life since we left caves, makes me laugh and cry in equal measure. It's absurd.

But wait for it.. he'll no doubt announce that since his measures are in place, only 6 people a year are being killed, so they must be working!!

[peterb]

Actually, he should be supplying arms to all these groups, because as the NRA says, "more guns make us safer".

[Top_gun]

If those who are against Trump, tell me. How would you deal with Terrorists?

I think the west has generally mismanaged the fight against ISIS by acting as recruitment sergeant for them. You can't nuke or carpet bomb an ideology.

[TheAnimus]

You can't nuke or carpet bomb an ideology.

We've been doing neither of those this far.

Also history has shown that you can for a long while at least use force to push back an ideology all too often sadly.

[Corky34]

We've been doing neither of those this far.

Give him a chance he's only been in power a few weeks.

Even though only 7% of terrorist groups are ended by military action I'd bet my bottom dollar on Trump ramping up the military action.

[TeePee]

I'll use this line out of context at any opportunity:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

An occasional attack which causes loss of life is tragic, deplorable, and we should do everything to prevent it from happening, except limiting people's freedoms. It is a sad, but necessary, part of the price to live in freedom.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

BAHAHAHA:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7556596.html

[Saracen]

A real threat DOESN'T exist, not in the US at least. According to the BBC, Islamists have killed 94 people in the States since 9/11. That's just over 6 a year, and that number is fairly consistent with pre 9/11 numbers too (and we all know that the places the 9/11 hijackers came from are the lads you listed as 'cooperating with the US and in the case of the Saudi's, had a security deal in place already a the time of the attacks'), and that was without the supposed 'Extreme Vetting'. Even if a 9/11 happened every year, a US citizen would still be far, far more likely to be killed by a non-terrorist gun attack, car accident, or swimming in a swimming pool then they would by a foreign led terrorist attack.
If someone said the UK would spend this amount of money and resources (specifically extreme vetting) on something that killed 6 people a year, what would you say? Because as it stands at the time of Trump bringing in the order, that's exactly what was happening in the US. And of course, that's ignoring the fact that numerous people, from both sides of the Political divide in the States, have said that this type of policy makes the US more vulnerable to attack, not less.

So yes, it is his call to make. But the idea that Donald Trump of all people can, 'sort out what the hell is going on', when terrorism in some form or another has been part of the human way of life since we left caves, makes me laugh and cry in equal measure. It's absurd.

How do you know a real threat "DOESN'T" exist? Absence of public knowledge of attack does not necessarily mean absence of attempted attack. It may simply mean foiled attempt.

Also, absence of attack so far most emphatically doesn't mean one won't happen at some point in the future.

Or are you suggesting that these terrorist groups have no intention, or desire, to attack the US?

And remember, this Trump executive order temporarily suspends most visa applications from countries defined by OBAMA legislation, while a review is done of deep vetting set up by OBAMA legislation to see if that vetting process is working.

No foreign national has an automatic right of entry to any other country, and every country has the right to determine who it will permit to enter the country. All Trump is doing with this order is a watered down version of his campaign commitment, to spend a few weeks reviewing whether an OBAMA measure is effective or not, when what's at stake is the ability of the US government to detect and exclude those seeking to do it and it's citizens harm. That objective is not only something they have a right to do, but an absolute snd prime duty to do.

As for what I'd say if this was done over 6 people a year ....

1) The figure of 6 is irrelevant, because scale of future threat is not demonstrated by past events when circumstances have changed.

2) I've not said I support this measure in the US, so why would my opinion of a hypothetical UK version matter, when our PM has alreafy explicitly ruled it out.

3) What I did was answer your "Why not Saudi" question. Because the list of countries Trump used was a list already in US immigration law, put there by Obama, and indeed including some countries on the list of state sponsors of terrorism for decades, like Syria. Trump didn't create the list, or select the countries. He merely used the list already in place.

[Saracen]

I'll use this line out of context at any opportunity:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

An occasional attack which causes loss of life is tragic, deplorable, and we should do everything to prevent it from happening, except limiting people's freedoms. It is a sad, but necessary, part of the price to live in freedom.

That's all very well, except that the freedom for non-US citizens to enter the US just because they want to does not and never has existed. We all need visa's, or participation in a visa waiver program. I've been in and out of the US countless times - up to 6 or 7 times a year in some years, for about 40 years, and I still am not "free" to assume a right of entry. Being permitted entry is still a privilege, not a right.

This, of course, is also a non-trivial aspect of Brexit - regaining control of our borders and who can enter, and work, as a right.

As a citizen of a country with a good relationship with the US, I qualify for visa-waiver privileges that citizens of msny countries do not, but even that privilege is not without limit - many citizens of the UK don't qualify for visa waiver, because citizenship of a country on the visa waiver list (in that same Immigration law) is necessary to get visa waiver, but not sufficient. I must also, for instance, be free of criminal convictions, etc.

Many, if not all, countries do this. I've had my right of entry queried in extended interview in Canada (before entry was approved). Ironically, hours after that interview I was at a gala dinner in Ottawa, and my dinner companion was the then Spanish Ambassador to Canada. I've also had my tight of entry to Romania queried .... by several large and serious looking troops, at sub-machine gunpoint.

The point?

You're not being denied a freedom by having qualification for entry, or granting of a visa, restricted, because you never had that freedom in the first place. You are free to seek entry, not to assume it as a right.

[TheAnimus]

Isn't part of the issue that there are people who have VISAs multi-entry issued, even some people who are citizens who were impacted by this ban?

It's deplorable to deny entry to someone who is a citizen.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Isn't part of the issue that there are people who have VISAs multi-entry issued, even some people who are citizens who were impacted by this ban?

It's deplorable to deny entry to someone who is a citizen.

Going further to my previous comment:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...r-iraqi-pilots

It seems the Pentagon might be trying to get those F16 trainee pilots exempt.

[Top_gun]

We've been doing neither of those this far.

Also history has shown that you can for a long while at least use force to push back an ideology all too often sadly.

Actually it has been done already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Taliban.html

Also history has shown persecution of religion can make them flourish. Take Christianity for example.

[Saracen]

Isn't part of the issue that there are people who have VISAs multi-entry issued, even some people who are citizens who were impacted by this ban?

It's deplorable to deny entry to someone who is a citizen.

Even having a valid visa is not a guarantee of being allowed to enter. That decision, at least except for special visa classes like diplomatic, etc, is still down to the discretion of border authorities, and the legal framework they operate within.

It can also be revoked or cancelled at any time, not least by modification of the terms of the INA. Exactly that happened to me when I rolled up at JFK immigration, a couple of decades back, with my valid "multiple-indefinite" visa. The ICE officer stamped it as cancelled there and then. Why? INA had been changed, such visas withdrawn and the Visa Waiver program implemented.

That change didn't much affect me, as I went in anyway, and dozens of times subsequently, but the fact is that as someone seeking to enter the US, I'm an applicant every time I arrive and the decision is in their hands, exactly as a US citizen arriving here is the applicant, and they do, or don't, get in based on UK law, and the interpretation of the facts and circumstances by UK border force staff.

And if either UK or US citizens arrive in Australia, they'll both be subject to Aussie rules and decisions .... such as whether they have sufficient funds or access to credit to support themselves. If not, and in the absence of someone to support you, then ticket and visa or not, you'll quite likely find yourself detained and on the next flight home.

And that's without coming from a country on a terrorism watch list.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

How do you know a real threat "DOESN'T" exist? Absence of public knowledge of attack does not necessarily mean absence of attempted attack. It may simply mean foiled attempt.

Also, absence of attack so far most emphatically doesn't mean one won't happen at some point in the future.

Or are you suggesting that these terrorist groups have no intention, or desire, to attack the US?

And remember, this Trump executive order temporarily suspends most visa applications from countries defined by OBAMA legislation, while a review is done of deep vetting set up by OBAMA legislation to see if that vetting process is working.

No foreign national has an automatic right of entry to any other country, and every country has the right to determine who it will permit to enter the country. All Trump is doing with this order is a watered down version of his campaign commitment, to spend a few weeks reviewing whether an OBAMA measure is effective or not, when what's at stake is the ability of the US government to detect and exclude those seeking to do it and it's citizens harm. That objective is not only something they have a right to do, but an absolute snd prime duty to do.

As for what I'd say if this was done over 6 people a year ....

1) The figure of 6 is irrelevant, because scale of future threat is not demonstrated by past events when circumstances have changed.

2) I've not said I support this measure in the US, so why would my opinion of a hypothetical UK version matter, when our PM has alreafy explicitly ruled it out.

3) What I did was answer your "Why not Saudi" question. Because the list of countries Trump used was a list already in US immigration law, put there by Obama, and indeed including some countries on the list of state sponsors of terrorism for decades, like Syria. Trump didn't create the list, or select the countries. He merely used the list already in place.

That's all very well, except that the freedom for non-US citizens to enter the US just because they want to does not and never has existed. We all need visa's, or participation in a visa waiver program. I've been in and out of the US countless times - up to 6 or 7 times a year in some years, for about 40 years, and I still am not "free" to assume a right of entry. Being permitted entry is still a privilege, not a right.

This, of course, is also a non-trivial aspect of Brexit - regaining control of our borders and who csn enter, and work, as a right.

As a citizen of a country with a good relationship with the US, I qualify for visa-waiver privileges that citizens of msny countries do not, but even that privilege is not without limit - many citizens of the UK don't qualify for visa waiver, because citizenship of a country on the visa waiver list (in that same Immigration law) is necessary to get visa waiver, but not sufficient. I must also, for instance, be free of criminal convictions, etc.

Many, if not all, countries do this. I've had my right of entry queried in extended interview in Canada (before entry was approved). Ironically, hours after that interview I was at a gala dinner in Ottawa, and my dinner companion was the then Spanish Ambassador to Canada. I've also had my tight of entry to Romania queried .... by several large and serious looking troops, at sub-machine gunpoint.

The point?

You're not being denied a freedom by having qualification for entry, or granting of a visa, restricted, because you never had that freedom in the first place. You are free to seek entry, not to assume it as a right.

Even having a valid visa is not a guarantee of being allowed to enter. That decision, at least except for special visa classes like diplomatic, etc, is still down to the discretion of border authorities, and the legal framework they operate within.

It can also be revoked or cancelled at any time, not least by modification of the terms of the INA. Exactly that happened to me when I rolled up at JFK immigration, a coupke of decades back, with my valid "multiple-indefinite" visa. The ICE officer stamped it as cancelled there and then. Why? INA had been changed, such visas withdrawn and the Visa Waiver program implemented.

That change didn't much affect me, as I went in anyway, and dozens of times subsequently, but the fact is that as someone seeking to enter the US, I'm an applicant every time I arrive and the decision is in their hands, exactly as a US citizen arriving here is the applicant, and they do, or don't, get in based on UK law, and the interpretation of the facts and circumstances by UK border force staff.

And if either UK or US citizens arrive in Australia, they'll both be subject to Aussie rules and decisions .... such as whether they have sufficient funds or access to credit to support themselves. If not, and in the absence of someone to support you, then ticket and visa or not, you'll quite likely find yourself detained and on the next flight home.

And that's without coming from a country on a terrorism watch list.

It also affects people who hold US passports.

Plus the own goal about the Iraqi F16 pilots who can't now train in the US after Iraq purchased 24 new F16s recently. Even the Pentagon is trying to intervene now,and we know that if the Pentagon gets their way,expect a whole lot of their staff to be fired,etc.