Empire War Forums

moist

Pity they come from a Muslim country though, so they aren't allowed into the US.

They’re already in the US, (or Europe) and now that ISIS is gone from Mosul they are waiting for either a financially viable and safe opportunity to return or the travel ban to expire, the latter more likely to happen first. The travel ban went into effect after Mosul was retaken from ISIS. This began years ago. Also, the US Supreme Court would not allow the administration to let in oppressed minorities from the affected countries because it was to ‘discriminatory’. And the left could not tolerate the idea that Christians no matter how oppressed would be able to enter the US. There are only 100 in Mosul anyway. And the administration has the power to make adjustments to the ban. Iraq is still not safe but at least it is becoming safer. Hence there is hope. Nice try though at slandering The Donald.

And furthermore, do not act like Iraq being a Muslim country is the reason why it is on the list. There are 48 Muslim majority countries not affected by the travel ban but only 5 are. Hundreds of countries with Muslim populations that are not affected. 92% of the world’s Muslim population can travel to and from the US. There are also 2 non Muslim countries with travel bans.

You articulated in your second comment well one of my points. Why select some countries over others? If it obviously isn't about Muslim population, what is it about? Surely not terrorism, or he'd have banned Afghani and Pakistani nationals - Venezuela is not a state with a terror issue either. I'm at a loss for the reason - perhaps you could stand up for 'The Donald' and explain. As to your first comment, I don't actually remembering slandering 'The Donald', but the more you pointed out the flaws of his plan, the more I feel like doing so. I fear I may seem bigoted, but if the real issue is Muslim terrorism, it would have been far more preferable to ban Muslims from terrorist states as a precautionary measure, rather than banning seemingly non-terrorist, random nationals, who aren't even of the same faith as these terrorists.

It’s about countries who have the inability or unwillingness to cooperate with the US and hold terrorists and potential terrorists. Egypt and Yemen are in a civil conflict, with the Embassy in Yemen forced to evacuate. Iraq is unsafe, unstable and still partially under ISIS control. Iran has endorsed anti American groups and showed unwillingness to cooperate with the US generally speaking. Syria is a triple threat with civil conflict, numerous insurgent groups including ISIS controlling parts of it, and Assad’s regime refusing to cooperate with the US and its allies.

I have explained this before and will continue to do so again until it is understood.

The two things each country on the list has in common including Venezuela and North Korea is civil unrest, hostility towards the US and lack of diplomatic relations and therefore ability to coordinate anti terrorism efforts.

Egypt is more stable now than it has been in many years, with only a small area of the Sinai remaining dangerous. You talk about harbouring terrorists, Pakistan and Afghanistan aren't on the list? Civil unrest? Well if that's a criterion then you'd better include Burma and the Philippines. Why was Sudan and Chad removed? What changed? Nothing. What's a big threat to the US? Boko Haram, yet none of the nations they operate in are on the list. Iraq was removed from the list, so you'll have to remove that from your argument I'm afraid. If Egypt is on the list due to a confined terrorist problem, why isn't China, with the issues in Xinjiang province, with civil unrest and terrorism amongst the Muslim Uyghur population.

I hope you realise I could go on and on.

You started this argument on incorrect information assuming Iraq was still part of the travel ban.

But remember that the thing all those countries have in common is hostility towards the US. Iraq is out ally and with the help of the coalition it is defeating ISIS so that’s probably why it’s not on the list. And yeah the travel ban probably sucks. But it took 2 years and a handful of revisions before the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. I probably agree more with what you are saying however, what you suggested we do is unconstitutional according to the current Supreme Court even though they are conservative. Not a single liberal would allow any type of travel ban if it is from a Republican. And reasons it is slandered is because liberals inaccurately believe it is a full fledged Muslim ban and equates to white supremacy.

And they cannot comprehend that unrestricted travel from most of the Islamic world is unsafe and irresponsible. Especially in Europe where there is no ocean to separate them and virtually no border. That is why Europe has suffered so much since the refugee crisis began.

Originally the plan was to allow Christians and other minorities to enter as refugees but the Court would not allow it. And the left claimed it was racist, which makes zero sense.

But we are trying to clarify especially to the left that this is not about Islam but about the other countries diplomatic relationship with the US. (Or lack thereof) And that it can stop at least some terrorists. But they don’t believe us and they don’t want to. They want to believe we are a racist islamophobic establishment because it is that idea that moves them passionately. And they will create propaganda even on the mainstream news to brainwash people into believing this. You would not believe (or maybe you would) the things I hear people say inaccurately. And then they act like conservatives are the only ones who could be misinformed.

You made the statement “Pity they (Christians) come from a Muslim country and aren’t allowed into the US” which is a statement riddled with inaccuracy and me having forgot about the status of Iraq with all the many things I have to remember, made a whole well articulated post about it but it was based on outdated information so now I look like a fool. In conclusion, the travel ban’s formula is a very watered down version of what it should be, and it’s the best we could get.