4 ms·
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 U
by 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 agoyeah, 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 agoPoint out an American politician who doesn't do business / takes donations from the Saudis. I'm waiting.
- HillaryBriss 10y agobut 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.