Muslim ban askew

c3vuf7vukaahub6

85 Comments

  1. Conspiratoor

     /  January 30, 2017

    Source?

  2. David

     /  January 30, 2017

    I’m sure many in the US would like to see that travel ban extended to those countries and Pakistan, but you are missing a rather important point. This ban isn’t about the body count in the US, it’s about the perception of the body count in those countries being imported into the US. The failure to understand that simple difference is telling.

    • Conspiratoor

       /  January 30, 2017

      David, I’m not sure whether the hysteria over this ‘ban’ is fake, alternative, biased or whatever you want to call it but I can’t find a reference to the seven countries in the executive order itself. It does however reference legislation introduced by obama in which the countries in question are named.
      Oh well I suppose it suits the narrative to blame Trump for selecting these seven countries and not selecting other countries “linked to his sprawling business empire”

      • David

         /  January 30, 2017

        Trump’s supporters will hear all of this wailing, see who it is doing the wailing, and be comfortable in themselves that they made the right choice. At this rate, Trump will finish this 4 year term more popular than he started.

        • Joe Bloggs

           /  January 30, 2017

          It’d be bloody difficult for him to be any less popular than he is now.

      • Anonymous Coward

         /  January 30, 2017

        ” It does however reference legislation introduced by obama in which the countries in question are named.”

        Citation Required.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 30, 2017

          3(c): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-refugee-ban-full-text-of-executive-order-immigration-a7550741.html

          The words Muslim or Islam do not appear anywhere in the document.
          Note also these provisions at the end:

          Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

          (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

          (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

          (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

          (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

          • Noel

             /  January 30, 2017

            Not the time for anybody to travel to the US.
            With an artificial hip and knee and the addition of a permanent colostomy US border agents and AirSec have the surlist lot of all the countries I have visited.
            But what really gets up my nose is they demand an intrusive ESTA before you travel and then make you pay for.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 30, 2017

              I am metal plated from shoulder to elbow, so I had better stay away, too. I thought that one could have a certificate to show this, but that must have changed-although why they would think that an artificial hip, knee or the metal wrapped around the shattered bone in my arm would be a threat to anyone is a mystery.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  January 30, 2017

              Luckily for you no one has ever blown up a plane with a bomb that was surgically implanted.

          • NOEL

             /  January 30, 2017

            Kitty the scanner defaults any implants out of the picture.
            Whenever I leave the body scanner now and look at the screen there is no indication of the implants but a mass of pixels where the colostomy bag is.
            In Australia I short circuit what could be a lengthy process by lifting my shirt and they wave me on.
            But in the US they get testy when I do that and demand I pat myself down then swab my hands and wait until the machine gives the all clear result.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  January 30, 2017

    At the moment it’s hard to separate the facts from the media beat up. At the bottom of this long article about the terrible impacts of the ban on 250,000 UK citizens it says this:

    After an intervention by the Foreign and Home Secretaries, sources close to Mr Trump’s administration said only British dual nationals flying directly from the seven countries affected will be banned.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  January 30, 2017

      I understand Canada has a similar exemption.

      • Gezza

         /  January 30, 2017

        Aljaz was reporting it was causing confusion at airports across the US & around the world with, despite the judge’s ruling, border officials interpreting it differently, & I think in at least one case apparently just ignoring the judge’s ruling. One Iraqi man was in tears.

        Muqtada al-Sadr was reported to be outraged & calling for an immediate ban on Americans in Iraq & going to Iraq.

      • Missy

         /  January 31, 2017

        Apparently the exemption is all five eyes nations, so NZ & Aus also have the exemption.

      • Gezza

         /  January 31, 2017

        They haven’t updated their public info yet then.

        Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015

        Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):

        Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country).
        Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria.

        These individuals will still be able to apply for a visa using the regular appointment process at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. For those who require a U.S. visa for urgent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States, U.S. Embassies and Consulates stand ready to handle applications on an expedited basis.

        https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html

        • Gezza

           /  January 31, 2017

          Although this also appears in there …

          “Certain other travelers who fall under this restriction may qualify for a waiver of the requirements. More information about possible waivers is forthcoming.”

    • Conspiratoor

       /  January 30, 2017

      How many non-residents fly into the US each day, 100,000 plus? But a mere 109 affected by the order is “chaos”

      “Chaos reigns as Trump’s immigration measures hit hard”

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11791047

      “An official with the Department of Homeland Security who briefed reporters by phone said 109 people who were in transit on airplanes had been denied entry and 173 had not been allowed to get on their planes overseas”.

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  January 30, 2017

    The Order text I referenced above states that the justification is the high risk that terrorist organisations will use these dysfunctional or hostile countries as an entry route to the US.

    • Brown

       /  January 30, 2017

      I did read elsewhere that the list reflects countries that are effectively disfunctional in respect of reliable travel documents. If so, that makes the list sensible.

      • Anonymous Coward

         /  January 30, 2017

        The list is a list of war zones, the legislation quoted regards the Visa Waiver Program. The original law cancels visa waivers from eligible countries if an individual has stepped foot in one of those countries.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 30, 2017

          It does much more than that. It blocks them outright from coming to the US. See below for text.

  5. Zedd

     /  January 30, 2017

    wasn’t goldilocks a character in a kids story.. so why are you even taking him seriously in the ‘matrix’ ?

    “wota whukin joke !”

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  January 30, 2017

      Better ask the world, Zedd. We are just trying to interpret it for you.

  6. Joe Bloggs

     /  January 30, 2017

    Question:
    What do Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE all have in common besides being Muslim majority countries that aren’t on Trumps ban list?

    Answer:
    They’re all countries in which Trump has businesses interests.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956

    Even if those countries were included in the US ban on immigration, it still wouldn’t legitimise banning green card holders and refugees.

    Not a single American was killed on U.S. soil by citizens from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, or Libya between 1975 and 2015. Yet nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt across the same time period — with the bulk of those killed being victims of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, people from those three countries are still welcome to apply for U.S. visas and travel permits.
    Source:
    https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_2.pdf

    This is just flat out bullying. And it’s dumb. What does he think this will do for Isis? He has made seven nations’ worth of easy recruits by setting up this ‘us versus them’ mentality. Bully the little guy and sooner or later his not-so-friendly brother is going to hit you back.

    • Conspiratoor

       /  January 30, 2017

      All good fun joe. Until you realise the list is not Trump’s list. It’s obamas

      • Anonymous Coward

         /  January 30, 2017

        A list of war zones singled out by the Obama administration to remove visa waivers from foreigners that had visited there but would otherwise not need a visa to visit the US.
        Put to a much more draconian use by Donny.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 30, 2017

          Wrong:

          What are the new eligibility requirements for VWP travel?

          Under the Act, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the VWP:

          Nationals of VWP countries who have been present in Iraq, Syria, or countries listed under specified designation lists (currently including Iran and Sudan) at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).
          Nationals of VWP countries who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).

          Link as per Conspiratoor above.

          • Anonymous Coward

             /  January 30, 2017

            How is what I said wrong when you back that up with something that verifies what I just said?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 30, 2017

              It’s not a visa waiver, it’s a ban.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  January 30, 2017

              Read it again Al.
              See if you can see your error.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 30, 2017

              You are right on this one, AC. Apologies.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  January 30, 2017

              That’s alright Al, it turns out it’s this guys fault:

              https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

              There’s conspirators whole angle in this story, and the same errors, notice he say’s Obama’s act was a ban too.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  January 30, 2017

              Steady on ac, Al’s capitulation has got you too cocky. Where have I claimed obama’s list was a ban? Do you think the use of inverted commas might indicate something else?

              “I’m not sure whether the hysteria over this ‘ban’ is fake…”

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  January 30, 2017

              I didn’t mean to say you did. That was Al, of course.
              But some of your points are verbatim from that article.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  January 30, 2017

              I’ll say it one more time and let’s agree to move on. Trump’s executive order referred to, and affected, countries that have been identified as terrorist threats under legislation introduced by barack hussein obama. I personally don’t give a rats arse whether trumps order named them (it didn’t) but I was trying to counter the screaming anti-trump shills who are joining the dots to make the list all about his business interests

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  January 30, 2017

              I got that, read the act, never disputed it after a citation was given.
              The rest of the discussion has been about what the act said and meant, which you haven’t really been a part of.
              The list of 7 is really just the list of countries that have ben bombed into oblivion since 9/11, FWFIW, there is nothing sinister in Obama’s act, just higher scrutiny for people that have been where the bombs are.
              Moving on.

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  January 30, 2017

        A list of countries where US wants a regime change – whose list is irrelevant. It’s what the list has been used for that’s unconstitutional.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 30, 2017

          It was constitutional for Obama but not for Trump then. Good luck with that.

        • Conspiratoor

           /  January 30, 2017

          You’re twisting your narrative joe. Now it’s no longer Trump’s list, it’s what it’s used for. Keep blasting away though. Sooner or later you might find a turd that sticks…

          “Question:
          What do Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE all have in common besides being Muslim majority countries that aren’t on Trumps ban list?

          Answer:
          They’re all countries in which Trump has businesses interests.”

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  January 30, 2017

        Bully the little guy and sooner or later his not-so-friendly brother is going to hit you back…

        Jihadist groups on Sunday celebrated the Trump administration’s ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, saying the new policy validates their claim that the United States is at war with Islam.

        Comments posted to pro-Islamic State social media accounts predicted that President Trump’s executive order would persuade American Muslims to side with the extremists. One posting hailed the U.S. president as “the best caller to Islam,” while others predicted that Trump would soon launch a new war in the Middle East.

        “[Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi has the right to come out and inform Trump that banning Muslims from entering America is a ‘blessed ban,’” said one posting to a pro-Islamic State channel on Telegram, a social-media platform. The writer compared the executive order to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which Islamic militant leaders at the time hailed as a “blessed invasion” that ignited anti-Western fervor across the Islamic world

        Leaders of the Islamic State speak frequently of their intention to drive a wedge between Western governments and their Muslim populations, and have welcomed outside help — intentional or not — in fulfilling that goal. In a 2015 essay in the Islamic State’s English-language magazine Dabiq, the group said that its motivation for launching terrorist attacks in Europe was to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash that would force ambivalent Muslims to enlist with them.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadist-groups-hail-trumps-travel-ban-as-a-victory/2017/01/29/50908986-e66d-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?postshare=9121485733446720&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.c8dcb143ffda

        “provoke an anti-Muslim backlash that would force ambivalent Muslims to enlist with them” – job done with the machinations of racist and islamophobe Steve Bannon, as signed off by the Great Pumpkin himself

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 30, 2017

          The not so friendly little brother is going to have more than enough troubles of his own to deal with before he’s much older.

        • Conspiratoor

           /  January 30, 2017

          Tolerance hasn’t got the civilised world far with Islamic terrorism. Perhaps it’s time we tried another approach. Unless you prefer a sit down and friendly chinwag

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  January 30, 2017

            This whole thing has been the stuff-up to end all stuff-ups, and a PR disaster. Stories like that of the Glasgow vet being left stranded are doing Trump no good at all-do Americans have the expression ‘own goal ‘ ?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 30, 2017

              It’s just got the people who hate Trump more excited, Kitty. It looks like the silly stuff is getting sorted out fast and more people will be impressed that Trump has done what he promised so quickly. Unless there are ongoing issues which are not apparent at the moment it will benefit rather than harm him.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 30, 2017

              I think that most people don’t admire a bully. I haven’t heard many people admiring over this issue, either at home or abroad. It’s horribly like what happened in Germany in the beginning, but this time, I hope, the world will stop it going any further.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 30, 2017

              The silly stuff is not sorted out. Residents are not being allowed back in, even people who’ve been there 20 years.It’s not silly, it’s persecution and against the American Constitution-not that that seems to matter to Trump.

              It must harm him, how can it not ?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 30, 2017
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 30, 2017

              Permanent residents, Green card holders and dual citizens are being allowed back in as of yesterday:

              http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-green-card-dual-citizens/index.html

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 31, 2017

              They weren’t when the news was on at 6pm.

            • Gezza

               /  January 30, 2017

              Still a monumental cock up on the orders to the troops front.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 30, 2017

              Yes, quite unnecessary. Hope those responsible either learn or get fired.

  7. Joe Bloggs

     /  January 30, 2017

    so now we have five Federal Court Judges issuing court orders opposing this travel plan.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/federal-judges-pile-orders-opposing-trump-travel-bans-article-1.2958793

    along with 16 State Attorney Generals who intend fighting the bans “with all the tools” of their offices:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/16-state-attorney-generals-vow-fight-trump-travel-bans-article-1.2958844

    Looks like the industry to be in during the Trump reign is going to be the legal industry

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  January 30, 2017

      I’m guessing Trump will be quite happy to have diverted some of them to this activity from suing various companies including his in pursuit of their Lefty agendas. Next step is probably to suck a bit of money out of them via their sanctuary city posturing.

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  January 30, 2017

        You don’t give a shit about America. All you care about is hating liberals.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 30, 2017

          I don’t hate them, I just laugh at them, Joe. You can’t see the joke maybe?

  8. I have to observe that the list of US citizens killed in the Countries listed does not include any US Military Personnel KIA, apparently. I note that 4,497 US personnel were KIA in IRAQ, also some 500 were KIA in Iran, 2,356 in Afghanistan etc etc. Just Google US KIA since 1975 and get the story that does not include CIA casualties. The list as it is presented seems to omit the value of servicemen KIA from the US, and thus loses a huge amount of credibility, for very obvious reasons. Lies, damn lies and statistics eh?

    • Anonymous Coward

       /  January 30, 2017

      That’s outside the scope of the research.

    • Anonymous Coward

       /  January 30, 2017

      Or rather, those figures are Americans killed in the US by immigrants from those countries.

      • Read the Press. The claimed Saudi Arabian involvement in the attacks in the US were not proven, merely suspected. The passport carried by an individual does not make the individual a representative of the Government that issued it. There are multiple examples of people using fake passports, such as French Intelligence Agents and probably Israeli Agents in NZ. An Islamic Terrorist acting for Dash etc has no allegiance other that to hiser belief in a narrow interpretation of the Koran.

        • Anonymous Coward

           /  January 30, 2017

          Again, read the study. It’s got nothing to do with Governments either, just place of birth.

        • AC, read the Table heading again. It says “Number of Americans Killed By their Citizens”. It makes no distinction about where the US citizens were killed only when (1975-2015), nor about their employment. As a retired serviceman with active service in 3 conflicts and non-active service in 2 other conflicts NZers were involved in I am pissed off at your implications that serving personnel do not count.

          • Anonymous Coward

             /  January 30, 2017

            Read the context. Understand it. Calm down.
            Also I didn’t say they don’t count, you’re putting words in my mouth

          • Gezza

             /  January 30, 2017

            Good to see you back Colonel. Hope the SOH has been fully refitted & is once sgain battle-ready. I did make a mental note when I saw that chart that it obviously didn’t include either US warriors or their opponents, but I thought it was reasonably clear by context that it meant innocent US civilians.

            I wonder if somebody did an equivalent chart of civilians killed by US warriors over the same period what it would look like?

        • Gezza

           /  January 30, 2017

          “An Islamic Terrorist acting for Dash etc has no allegiance other that to hiser belief in a narrow interpretation of the Koran.”

          I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. In some cases they are also motivated by revenge, patriotism etc.

        • Joe Bloggs

           /  January 30, 2017

          And another one in the last 24 hours, in Yemen….. Along with ten women and 3 children…

        • Gezza

           /  January 30, 2017

          “I note that 4,497 US personnel were KIA in IRAQ, also some 500 were KIA in Iran, 2,356 in Afghanistan etc etc. Just Google US KIA since 1975 and get the story that does not include CIA casualties.”

          I wonder what they were doing in Iraq? Finding non-existent WMD’s, removing Sadam & bringing democracy & respect for human rights to the place, I understood, though it looked like that was mostly bullshit at the time & Chilcott says it was.

          Afganistan? Getting Bin Laden & getting rid of the Taliban, I understood. Obama got him in Pakistan a decade later, & the Taliban are still marauding around.

          Of course Military Service personnel have to go where they’re sent & kill people even when their bosses are unprosecuted war criminals, but it’s not really cricket to classify foreign invaders as victims of terrorism imo.

  9. John Schmidt

     /  January 30, 2017

    This is what happens when you let the Duck Dynasty choose the President.