7 ms·

From the article: "Trump signed an executive order Friday prohibiting entry by people from seven majority-Muslim nations for 90 days. Citizens of Syria, Iraq,

• ledbettj 10y ago
  Can you talk about what the existing procedures are for refugees from these countries, and why they're not sufficient? I would Also be interested in knowing how many terrorist acts have been committed in the US by refugees.
  • jonathankoren 10y ago
    It takes two years of vetting before a refugee is granted entry to the United States, and even then most applicants are denied. The process includes multiple interviews, background checks, and biometric searches.[1] Why isn't this sufficient? Well, it is sufficient. Your chances of being killed by a refugee turned terrorist is 1 in 3.6 billion according to the Cato Institute.[2] So why isn't considered sufficient? Quite frankly it a political ploy to gain support by stoking unfounded fears of others. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/20/us/why-it-takes-two-years-for-syrian-refugees-to-apply-to-enter-the-united-states.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/20/us/why-it-tak... [2] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-foreign-born-domestic-terrorists https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-for...
    • pfarnsworth 10y ago
      Germany had a massive amount of sexual assaults perpetrated over NYE last year, mainly from Middle Eastern immigrants/refugees. Things like this tend to leave lasting bad impressions on refugees in general, regardless of how true it is, and look at how that issue blew up in Merkel's face since then. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10...
      • jonathankoren 10y ago
        Perception and reality are two different things, and only the former is relevant to politics.
      • mkesper 10y ago
        The offenders were mostly from northern Africa (so not from Syria, where most immigrants in 2015 came from). That Washington Post article is clearly biased. Better read the source article: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/uebergriffe-in-koeln-frauen-wurden-opfer-von-silvester-gewalt-1.3072064 http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/uebergriffe-in-koeln-frau...
• cmdrfred 10y ago
  According to the Democratic narrative its fine to bomb these people yet unacceptable to deny them entry to your country. I have trouble wrapping my head around that.
  • linkregister 10y ago
    Many Democrats don't support drone strikes; drone strikes are also supported by Republican congressmen; the drone strikes are used to kill enemy combatants that have planned and continue to plan bombings to kill U.S. noncombatants. It's pretty disingenuous to claim that enemy combatants dodge a drone strike and then are subsequently approved for an entry visa. I could make the insult, "Your side imagines all brown people are terrorists, racist!" But that's not how you feel.
    • cmdrfred 10y ago
      Not only "enemy combatants" were killed a great number of innocent women and children were as well. I never claimed "terrorists" might try and enter the country by this route but it is utterly preposterous in my mind to claim you care about a population that you are murdering. If Democrats cared about drone murder they certainly dident enough to protest.
  • hprotagonist 10y ago
    i don't think it's fine to do either, and i'm a registered democrat.
    • cmdrfred 10y ago
      Voices like yours were sorely missed over the last 8 years while the bombing was going on.
      • kasey_junk 10y ago
        So? You are willing to make it worse now because we did something bad in the past? That's an insane position. You'll note this isn't a trade we aren't quitting the bombing by banning travelers.
• rtpg 10y ago
  Iran is a war zone? Besides, there are people from these countries who have green cards. People living in the US for years. They could have gone on a business trip to Canada last week, and now are stuck outside the country. If we don't let people who are already living here come back, do you think we should kick them out? What about the Iraqis that worked with the military and got visa status before? Do we kick them out?
  • yequalsx 10y ago
    I believe this does not affect green card holders. My understanding is that green card holders are entitled to enter the U.S. in a similar way that U.S. are entitled to enter the U.S.
    • tobltobs 10y ago
      Homeland security thinks different: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-gree...
      • mistermann 10y ago
        As a soft Trump supporter, this infuriates me. I hope he walks this back quickly.
      • cookiecaper 10y ago
        That's not much of a source. Not even a full sentence from the supposed email. Color me dubious. I don't think anyone would expect this to affect green card holders, and if this isn't an outright fabrication, which frankly wouldn't surprise me at this point, I'm sure Trump will clarify the matter shortly. No one wants these policies to affect established, permanent residents. Remember, this is a very hard transition and the teams are still in the process of exchanging. It's absolutely plausible that there are anti-Trump people in the government doing everything they can to throw a wrench in the works. The media has certainly made it clear that they're basically willing to self-immolate to try to stop Trump, and I think there are a lot of Obama-era workers of similar mind.
• mjmsmith 10y ago
  > they are also war zones Yeah, because that's where refugees tend to come from. > If it was an anti-islam thing You know that if and when the ban is lifted, it also prioritizes Christian refugees over Muslims, right? > For our firm this won't really make a difference right now Your humanity is a shining example to all.
• ebbv 10y ago
  Banning people trying to escape war zones makes it worse not more acceptable. Stop watching so much TV news and reading articles by cowardly hate mongers. Most people are just like you and me and only want to provide a nice life for their families.
  • cookiecaper 10y ago
    That's true, but it's not about "most people". Most people from those nations never had a chance of ending up in the United States anyway. Even for first-world migrants, getting access to another first-world country costs tens of thousands of dollars and months or years of time. If we're seriously interested in helping, we should stop pretending like we can absorb all the refugees in existence and focus instead on practical, tangible ways to improve the lives of the people who are suffering. There is also a degree of isolationism, which is important. There is no need for America to get involved in everyone else's fight. There are always going to be problems in the world, and it shouldn't be our concern to try to fix all of them. Because the wars in the Middle East are often blamed on the U.S. (because of support for Israel, or American involvement in regime change, or something else), segments of the population grow to hate us, and segments of that population radicalize and believe they can derive meaning from attacking their perceived enemy in the only way they can (terrorism). This has happened numerous times in the US already. Since foreign nationals have no inherent right to access the U.S., it's perfectly logical to tighten procedures for prospective entrants from terror-prone nations.
    • ebbv 10y ago
      It's not an either or. We can absorb a lot more refugees than we are taking now (which is basically none) and we can also have better foreign policy than we have had for the last 20 years.
      • cookiecaper 10y ago
        But why would we? Because it's the polite thing to do? That's fine to an extent, but when there are active state-sponsored terrorist populations trying to sneak in operatives from the very region affected, why is that a risk that's wise for us to take? The "state-sponsored terrorism" boogeyman used to be a mostly-imaginary thing with reference to Iran, but who can argue now that ISIS, a literal terrorist state, controls large sections of Iraq and Afghanistan? Culturally, we have very little in common with Middle Eastern refugees, and I don't just mean "they go to a weird looking church". We don't share similar cultural values. It's a big culture shock in both directions. There are other nations nearby that are much more similar and that the majority would be much more comfortable in. Geographically, we're nowhere near the affected areas, and we already have a burgeoning refugee crisis on our southern border. Why do we need to import Syrian or other Middle Eastern refugees, specifically? We have taken them in some limited quantities, and that alone is risky enough, is it not? I sympathize with wanting to be nice, but we need to be smart about it. There's more to life than tingly feelings, and there are plenty of opportunists out there who'd be happy to exploit our kindness. I love being nice, but I also love being smart. We should do both.
• JacobJans 10y ago
  Unfortunately, it is about the fact that they are Muslims. "Mr. Trump also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims." Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-...
  • tboyd47 10y ago
    This statement alarmed me, so I looked into it and I find it's a tad misleading. The executive order itself neither explicitly prioritizes Christians over Muslims nor mentions either religion by name. It directs authorities to give priorities to applicants who practice a minority religion in their country of origin. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
    • tacomonstrous 10y ago
      That's not a religious test? It's clear what its intent is.
    • JacobJans 10y ago
      The President made it clear that it is about prioritizing Christians: “if you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible." "I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them,” the president said. Sadly, even his logic is factually incorrect. Not that facts matter. Anger does, right? And fear.
      • HillaryBriss 10y ago
        i gather you're saying that Trump has his facts wrong here, which unfortunately seems to be a common problem for him. that said, what are the facts about refugee counts by religion from Syria?
      • tboyd47 10y ago
• curun1r 10y ago
  The purported anti-terror rationale seems pretty disingenuous when you look at the nationalities of the people who have previously committed acts of terror on US soil. San Bernadino was someone from Pakistan and someone from the US. 9/11 was people from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and UAE. Oklahoma City was an American. And every school, church, theater, etc mass shooting that has taken place over the past decade was either committed by an American or national of a country not on his list. So what's the point of it then? It can't be about "safely allowing immigration" if we're not blocking people from countries that have historically threatened our safety in the past.
  • HillaryBriss 10y ago
    yeah, this is very suspicious. immigrants from Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not scrutinized the way immigrants from Iran are, under this policy. we really must look at Trump's motivations. Just considering the case of Saudi Arabia, we have this: [Trump] emphasized that he has a good relationship with Saudi Arabia. On the same day, he said: “They are buying apartments and properties from me,” adding, “They spend $40-50 million, I am supposed to hate them? I love them very much.” http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2016/11/22/Revealed-Trump-s-business-deals-with-Saudi-Arabia.html http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2016/11/22/...
    • tdkl 10y ago
      Point out an American politician who doesn't do business / takes donations from the Saudis. I'm waiting.
      • HillaryBriss 10y ago
        but that's the beauty of it. i don't have to name such a politician in order to justify my comment. even if every single US politician takes donations from the Saudis, it still makes sense to scrutinize the motivations behind any policies that appear to unfairly favor Saudi Arabia.
• KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  I'm sad to see that muninn_'s comment is being downvoted, since he's expressing a view that I'm sure is held by a majority of the US public. It's actually already common for J1 visa holders to be vetted for months before they are allowed to return to the United States. This is a policy that existed long before Trump became president.
• livestyle 10y ago
  Racist!! jk It's refreshing to see a rational response to theses EO's instead of the over the top virtue signaling that is now common place on HN.