General Question

flo's avatar

What did travel ban mean if you were asked before Trump's presidency?

Asked by flo (10479points) 2 months ago

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39044403
And what other term has been used/could be used other than “muslim ban” and “travel ban”?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

stanleybmanly's avatar

The term has been
in use for as long as we’ve had a State Department. We’d gotten use to our own citizens being restricted by our government from places like Cuba or North Korea. But leave it to knucklehead to openly attempt to persecute people on the basis of their religious affiliation.

Zaku's avatar

I remember a so-called “no fly list” being heavily mis-applied during the Bush Junior administration “to protect our way of life” from people who are not threats, such as Cat Stevens.

flo's avatar

Feb.27/2017 was the date of Trump’s executive order, which was called Muslim ban (so called or not) right? I don’t know what the Trump supporters called it, but it was generally referred to as muslim ban (Trump administration didn’t specify countries at that time). And then after a certain date, it strated being referred to as travel ban by the media, right? But the ban is not about US citizens/residents not being allowed to go to these 7 or so countries, but about the muslims from those countires not being allowed to visit/immigrate, seek refugee status, student status, in US. So what is the correct term since travel ban and muslim ban imo don’t work When I heard or read travel ban it was alwways about don’t go to….because of virus/ kidnapping/bombing…in the whichever country.

flo's avatar

… The above post edited by the way.

seawulf575's avatar

We have had travel bans for decades. Even during the hey-day of immigration around the turn of the 20th century, we didn’t let everyone in. We banned many people from entering the country. We didn’t accept Germans or Japanese into this country without proper vetting during WWII. It makes sense to limit the influx of people from nations that are hostile to you.
Its just that most in the media are looking to discredit Trump so they renamed his to be a Muslim Ban. After they got schooled a few times, they finally changed it to Travel Ban. Even the liberal courts bought into the media bias. In the original EO, Trump did not mention Islam at all and the only country he specified was Syria in that Syrian refugees would not be allowed into this country until they could be properly vetted. He mentioned a lot about identifying nations that were hostile to the US, but had in writing that the DHS was to comprise a list to submit to him. When the liberal courts tried putting a hold on that, he specified several nations. And everyone went nuts again calling it a Muslim ban. But there were probably 3 times as many nations that are comprised of mainly Muslims that were NOT on the list. So how can you specify a fraction of the nations and be declared to be creating a Muslim ban? It makes no sense at all.

flo's avatar

But the one about US people not going there so that they won’t contract SARS, Zika, Ebola, etc.,,or don’t go to North korea, Cuba_ etc. That (don’t travel there) is called _travel__ban/advisory So, do not travel to…
Other people wanting to go to US for wahtever reason, is a completely different thing. That’s what I mean @stanleybmanly and @Zaku and @seawulf575

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I just have to ask…did you feel the same way when Obama rejected Christians from Syria that tried entering our country from Mexico? They were escaping persecution and almost certain murder if they stayed so they came her through illegal means. They asked for asylum. And for the first time in his terms of office, he stopped people from entering this country from Mexico and deported them back to Syria. He fought to bring every Muslim “refugee” he could find and absolutely refused to stop people from Mexico or deport them but when Christians come here asking for help? He’s suddenly all about borders. Religious Persecution? I think so.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The 2 situations are in no way analogous. But before we get to that, I want to ask you to look at your statement beginning with “He fought to bring…” Do you really propose to stand by that statement and expect a rational discussion to ensue?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575. 1.The Syrians were NOT rejected because they were Christians. 2.Obama issued no edict nor directive involving them. 3. Do you seriously believe that Obama “absolutely refused to stop people from Mexico or deport them?”

flo's avatar

@seawulf575 Do you have a link to post about it?
Anyway even if Obama did what you say he did, how does it make it ok for Trump to prevent every muslim person simply because they happen to share the same religion? What if every person from the city/ies Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols came from, was prevented from x,y,z?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Past history with you has totally sapped me of any hope of having a rational discussion with you.

seawulf575's avatar

@flo , I will make one correction: they were from Iraq, not Syria, but they were running from ISIS. Here are a few links:

https://www.cfr.org/blog/united-states-bars-christian-not-muslim-refugees-syria

http://humanevents.com/2015/09/28/obama-throws-christian-refugees-to-lions/

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sdut-Iraq-Chaldean-Christians-deported-immigration-2015aug10-story.html

And here are some other interesting items: These Christians were detained in Detention Facilities until they could be detained. How many other illegals did the Obama Administration detain? Not a ton, that is for sure. In fact Obama spent most of his tenure working to let other illegals wander freely throughout the US.
As for Trump banning Muslims…that is my whole point. He isn’t banning Muslims. He is putting a temporary ban on bringing in refugees and other immigrants from specific nations that have harbored and endorsed terrorism, specifically against the US, until they can be adequately vetted. It doesn’t matter if they are Muslims or Christians. If it was a ban against Muslims, he would have included about 2 dozen other countries in the ban because they have a majority of Muslims in them as well. That is exactly my point. Liberals and the media claim it is a “Muslim Ban” despite the fact that it specifically isn’t, but the average people that don’t bother to read the actual Executive Orders just go with what others say.

flo's avatar

I haven’t read the links yet.
But there is nothing in my post that says Trump banned all Muslims in the world. On the contrary, I brought up the specific area/s that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols came from.

Re. until proper vetting is done thing, which is a fact, that they are vetted and vetted and vetted, or they are not?

seawulf575's avatar

Your statement first questioned if Obama did what I said he did. The links will tell you that he did, if you look at them. Then you stated : “how does it make it ok for Trump to prevent every muslim person simply because they happen to share the same religion? ” Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like you believe Trump has a ban on allowing Muslims into this country..aka ALL Muslims in the World. Because that is what the media has sold…a Muslim Ban. The EOs don’t mention religion at all. “Muslim” is a term that liberals and the Media threw in to make it look like Trump is a bigot. He merely wants to help push the security of this country, a goal that, by the examples from the left in the past few years, is one that liberals do NOT share. The vetting is a fine example. No, the refugees coming into this country from the ME were not vetted. The officials in the Obama administration admitted that. They stated that records are difficult to come by and that vetting was just too hard. They stated that in many cases, their version of vetting was to ask the person who they were. No proof was required. So if Usama bin Laden’s brother wanted to come here to blow up a city, he would just have to tell them he was John Smith and that he felt persecuted. That would be all the proof they would need to let him in. You did bring up McVeigh and Nichols, but I thought you were using them as an example of how blanket bans might be bad. If you would like, I will use that example. Let’s say we go back to the cities that they were from…Lockport NY and Lapeer MI respectively. If those two cities had cultures that embraced terrorism, harbored terrorists, had many terrorists that worked out of there as their home base, and had sworn to destroy this country, and IF we had laws about not allowing travel between cities, I would fully support a travel ban on people from those cities. Why WOULDN’T you? Now, since those cities are already in this country, we would have a plethora of devices that could be used to deal with the terrorist threat from them, so it isn’t a realistic comparison, but you get the idea. If you set the criteria the same, I would support the same response.

flo's avatar

btw, you can’t have a rational discussion with who??? It must be my eyes.

I stand corrected my statement says didn’t include ”...from those counties.” But I was thinking about every muslim from those countries. It’s still wrong to block every muslim from those countries,

MollyMcGuire's avatar

The same thing it means now. Do you think border control is a new concept?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther