Trump’s immigrant ban: getting it into perspective


President Trump’s decision to implement a temporary block on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries has generated a certain amount of excitement, with hysterical protests around the world.  But it would be good to get it into some perspective.  It has been characterised as an “anti Muslim” or even “Islamophobic” policy.  It is worth remembering that a “phobia” is defined as an irrational fear.  Given the extent of terrorist activity undertaken by ISIL and associated groups, fear of Islamic terrorism is hardly irrational.

Of course Trump is simply implementing the policy promises from his election campaign – policies for which he has a clear mandate.  Some would give him credit for keeping his word.

Trump’s ban is about security, not about religion.  It just happens, sadly, that Islamic terrorism is the major threat of the moment.  We might also reflect that Trump’s list of seven countries is not Trump’s list at all – it was drawn up previously by the Obama administration. It is pointed out that the worst terrorist atrocity in the USA – the Twin Towers – largely involved terrorists from Saudi Arabia, which is not on the list.  Yes.  But the list identifies countries with a major Islamist presence, and (in most cases) where civil order and the rule of law are in question.  They therefore arguably present the greatest risk.

Some point out that rather few terrorist events in the USA have been caused by Muslim immigrants, and this is true.  But Americans can see what is happening in Europe, and can hardly be blamed for taking preventive measures before the same problems reach their shores.

Taking steps against potential hostile threats is by no means new.  Indeed it is a typical response of democratic countries in time of war.  And while the USA is not at war directly, it (and we) face very serious threats of asymmetric hostilities from Islamic terrorists, which have many of the characteristics of war.

During the Second World War, America interned 100,000+ Japanese in their country.   Britain interned Germans during the First World War and again in the Second World War. Probably most of those interned were decent, peace-loving people who posed no threat (just as most would-be visitors to the US probably pose no threat) , but because some were believed to be a threat, it was deemed necessary to intern them all.

It doesn’t necessarily take a right-wing Republican President to take this kind of action.  Jimmy Carter during the Iranian Hostage crisis imposed a ban on visitors from Iran. That paragon of left-wing values Saint Obama himself imposed a ban on visitors from Iraq for six months in 2011.

Of course the anti-Trump brigade (including the Daily Mirror) have rushed out with opinion pieces explaining why Trump’s action is not quite the same.  But in fact on six occasions the US has chosen to ban immigrants for a period.

There are other examples around the world of countries excluding visitors or immigrants from other particular states.  There are reportedly sixteen countries that ban visitors from Israel – and this is specifically because they are from Israel, not for any perceived terrorist threat.  This is blatant discrimination on the grounds of nationality.  In a recent radio interview, I put this to Professor of Politics Anthony Glees.  He came back with “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.  Well done the Professor.  But that’s not the point, Anthony.  The question is: why are you up in arms against President Trump’s ban (which had some justification in security terms) yet have nothing to say about the 16-country ban on Israel (which had none)?

Professor Glees at least conceded that asylum seekers should be vetted, and if their claims were in doubt, excluded and returned.  But with thousands or tens of thousands arriving, mainly from chaotic war zones, how on earth can reliable and comprehensive information be obtained on each case?  It can’t.  ISIL infiltrators don’t arrive saying “I’m from ISIL, and I have an AK47 in my suitcase”.  No.  They have training.  They have detailed (though fabricated) back-stories to support their applications.  Arguably they may even be more successful on that basis than genuine asylum seekers.  The truth is that there is significant doubt in virtually every case, so on Professor Glees’ advice, we should refuse entry to all – which is exactly what President Trump is doing.

Of course President Trump’s temporary ban is open to criticism on the details of its implementation.  But the widespread attacks on the President, the wave of synthetic outrage, is entirely lacking in justification.  It is, quite simply, downright naked prejudice and anti-American bile.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Trump’s immigrant ban: getting it into perspective

  1. martinbrumby says:

    Great piece! Nice to read a bit of sanity….

    You might also mention that Trump repeatedly said during his campaign that he would impose a temporary ban “until we work out what’s going on with terrorism.” So yet again we have the anti-democratic, frantic virtue-signallers and Socialist Worker brigade wanting Trump not to do precisely what he said he’d do, and what the Americans voted for.

    Interesting to see that the great majority of the UK ‘ban-Trump’ team are from London (see Guido).

    Fascinating that Obama, as virtually his last Presidential act, quietly gave the Palestinians $221 Million. (Fox News) Have the Palestinians ever had recourse to terrorism???? Hmm. That’s a tough one (not).

    And I wonder why, unaccountably, the BBC never mentioned Obama’s little present? And to think that, exactly eight years ago today, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee nominated the freshly elected President Obama a Peace prize. Strangely, I haven’t heard that Trump might get one today! I’m waiting with bated breath….

  2. catalanbrian says:

    Exactly as I would expect a racist Kipper to respond.

    • William Richards says:

      That’ll be because you’re a deluded and vile lefty, whose arrogance is such that he feels he can accuse any with opposing views as “racist”. Sadly, you are just another predictably deluded lefty, whose arguments are so unsustainable, that name-calling and abuse becomes necessary. Why don’t you grow up, or (heaven forbid), put together some kind of coherent, rational, and if possible for a lefty, honest argument?

      • catalanbrian says:

        So you believe that Trump and his policies are good for the world, or indeed the USA? If so, that’s what I call deluded.

      • NeutralParty says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but “deluded and vile lefty” looks like the so-called “name-calling and abuse” you seemingly point out…No?

      • William Richards says:

        catalanbrian, you draw the accusation “racist” like a gun…why not do something untypical of the deluded left, and actually attempt to make a sustainable and rational argument?

        Whilst Roger made a very comprehensive and cohesive argument to prove he is not “racist”, why should anyone have to prove they are not racist, before making comments or attacking observations or stories about race, religion, ideology, or whatever? Just because the left like to try to shut down argument or debate when they are likely to lose it, by shouting “racist!” at their detractors, will not and should not compel anyone to have to prove they are not racist , to the satisfaction of the idiot throwing out the allegation. If you think it is legitimate to use such tactics, then at least have the decency to be specific about what particular aspect you consider to be “racist”, so that the point can be addressed, or not, by the accused.

      • William Richards says:

        To be frank, if you call me deluded, I would consider it a compliment catalbrian. Trump’s intentions will certainly be better for America and her lawful citizens, than those of the pro islamic Obama and his racist wife, whose hypocrisy would have been funny, if it wasn’t so serious.

        I am more than happy to argue the finer points, and explain my thinking, which I’m sorry to say, means I am not deluded. Perhaps you would care to clearly lay out your reasons for hating Trump, even before he has had the opportunity to put any changes of significance in place, or indeed, given them time to run, so that the impact of them might be measured?

        I am absolutely confident that President Trump will be considerably better for the world than his pro islamic predecessor, and less dangerous than Clinton, the dishonest, self-serving, habitual liar, with her criminal behaviour, taking large sums of money from islamic regimes, finding humour in successfully having incriminating evidence discounted in a trial against a violent, sex attackers who had brutally raped a young girl, etc.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      oh…off the pills again?

    • KennieD says:

      the correct word is “racialist” Get someone to read from a good dictionary to you and you will find there is no such proper word as ‘racist’.
      Then you may be able to try to insult everybody properly.

      • Roger Dewhurst says:

        It would be a good idea if the cretins who bandy around the words “racist” or “racialist” bothered to enquire into the meaning of race. It has a meaning very close to sub-species.

      • catalanbrian says:

        I wrote racist for the simple reason that I meant racist. I did not mean racialist, which is a different word with a different meaning. I think that you may need to read a modern dictionary, rather than your antique version.

    • Kevan Chippindall-Higgin says:

      You are accusing someone of what is tantamount to a crime on the basis of a reasoned comment. Feel free to disagree. It is called freedom of speech. However, this freedom does not extend to libel. If you have evidence of racism, fine, let’s see it.

      If you do not, I would suggest that you choose your words with rather greater care. As it is, you have utterly failed to make any counter points whatsoever beyond abuse and libelous comments. If you have arguments, make them. I suspect you do not.

    • Roger Dewhurst says:

      If they were Hillary Clinton’s policies you would be clapping your grubby hands.

    • Catalanbrian: sometimes you say things that are interesting — even if I rarely agree. But you demean yourself by using “racist” as a generalised term of abuse in an inappropriate context. You devalue the word. What will you say when you encounter real racism?

      Let me remind you: I spent a dozen years in Asia, working with colleagues and staff of other races. Nearly four years running a company of 300+ in Malaysia where I was the only Westerner. During my 17 years in parliament I have had a number of ethnic minority staffers, and I have one at the moment. Moreover I am now (recently divorced) dating a lady of ethnic-minority heritage.

      Does that sound racist to you? Will you argue that the staffers and the girlfriend are merely “tokens” to deflect criticism? And would you like to apologise?

      • catalanbrian says:

        I fully accept your statement that you are not racist. The point that I was making, albeit perhaps badly, was that the way in which you defended Trump’s banning of certain people was exactly how I would expect racist people to respond. And I would add that many, if not most of your UKIP supporting chums, including those on here are undoubtedly racist.

      • William Richards says:

        Roger, catalanbrian is evidently a leftist cretin, who presumes to know every member of UKIP, and all of its supporters, by stating they are all racist! You, me, and anybody else should have to feel the need to prove we’re something we’re not, just because some vacuous lefty does what vacuous lefties routinely do, which is to throw out the “racist” claim, in the hope that in doing so they will escape the necessity of having to defend some of rubbish they espouse. From one “racist” to another!

      • Jane Davies says:

        Brian. Please remove or apologise for the accusation that those who comment on here are all racist. I have never posted a comment that would indicate such.

      • catalanbrian says:

        “Many, if not most” does not mean “all”. I stand by my statement.

  3. Ex-expat Colin says:

    “How are the EU and Turkish border fences and walls going?” A short study:


  4. dave roderick says:

    off topic but worth a read

    this could be ground breaking

    roger as energy spokesman you should read it and find out more

  5. mike5262015 says:

    I was totally unaware of Trump until his interest in becoming President. Put simply, I just don’t like the guy. He is a loud, ignorant Yank from the school of ‘Only in America is a man fully growd’ and is someone I would avoid at all costs. Just for a moment, it is possible to feel sorry for our Queen, who will have to tolerate this Yanky lump on his inevitable visit, that Maggie May lands her with. – However, he is the bitter pill we will have to swallow, for us to enjoy trade deals with the U.S., and we have to impress him with friendship. Apparently he likes us, and state visits don’t last for ever. – They just feel that they do ! He is a great big clumsy lump that has started his term of office, with an embarrassingly obvious ‘I’m in charge,’ and no doubt he is most happy with himself. What we have to learn, is how we keep our feelings to ourselves. Trade with the U.S. is what we want, and it would be the height of stupidity to risk that benefit for many years to come, just for the sake of showing a big daft Yank what we think of him. We must grow up !

    • john0267 says:

      I would be most interested in the evidence you have for your views

      • mike5262015 says:

        Dear John, the evidence for my views is that of what I have heard and seen. You can polish a turd, but at the end, all you have is a turd ! No one would be happier than me to be wrong about this guy, but I won’t hold my breath.

      • Roger Dewhurst says:

        Just opinions. He does not need or want evidence.

    • William Richards says:

      You continually use the word “lump” to disrespect President Trump,…can’t you at least attempt to be a little more grown up in your denigration of him? You also keep alluding to “we”…who exactly are “we”? I am English, living in England, and I completely disagree with your unsubstantiated rant. You sneer at his “embarrassingly obvious ‘I’m in charge'” entrance as President, but isn’t that what Presidents are elected to be? What else is his job, if not to steer the ship, so to speak?

      I should remind you that that “great big clumsy lump” (though quite what is clumsy, or lumpy about him, you don’t specify), has grown a business empire that gives employment and security to thousands of people within and without America, has run a Presidential race against all the odds, the sneering liberals, and the mocking and fake news of the mainstream, liberal media both here and in America, he has used considerable sums of his own money to do it…unlike the millions of dollars Clinton received from Wall St banks and islamic regimes, and he has won that Presidential race. He has also started work on fulfilling the promises he made within his first week in office.

      Just an opinion.

      • mike5262015 says:

        Sorry for the delay with this William. Put simply, as I said, I just don’t like this guy. He is the absolute individual for the saying, – ” He knows the price of everything, and the real value of nothing,” I asked some friends on the East Coast of USA, how it is possible for such a large and powerful country to finally shake down to the choice of Trump or Clinton, and is it not a case of the biggest pile of cash winning ? While I am at it, my apologies for calling him a clumsy lump. Apologies also to John and Roger. I was so taken aback by this guy winning, that I forgot myself, and your comments are well founded. I do hold fast to the need to put on a brave face, because we do need the trade with the USA, and Trump is the door we must enter by !

    • William Richards says:

      I bet you were like the rest of us, and totally unaware of Obama, until he was suddenly put up for the democrat nominee too?

  6. Ex-expat Colin says:

    For the one above of the bile expulsion and missing his pills:

    (From Willis Eschenbach)
    The enabling authority for the Executive Order is 8 US Code 1882, which says in part:

    Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

    That seems crystal clear. However, the President is a businessman. He doesn’t sign anything until the lawyers have vetted it. In this case, the EO was signed off by two separate government legal authorities—the White House Counsel, and the Office of Legal Counsel of the very Department of Justice headed by Sally Yates (of the Fired variety).

    In other words, there are a lot of folks who say it is legal. And its not Freaking racist!

  7. Kevan Chippindall-Higgin says:

    I love all the bile being generously spewed around by the luvvie lefties with regard to Trump’s get with the programme or get out stance.

    Have we all forgotten Labour MPs back in the day all having to carry pagers so that they were always ‘on message?’ Trump has told his public servants, in the clearest way possible, that he is the elected president and as such, represents the majority of the US people. He has gone on to remind them of the word servant in their job title, which is to serve one’s master. Through his election, he is their master. Like any other servant, they do as they are told or get sacked. I wish a bit more of that went on here.

    Trump is quite right. I hope that he clears out a load of dead wood from the civil service and makes the rest properly accountable. It is not for civil servants to decide whether elected representatives are right or wrong. That is the job of the electorate. The civil service must be strictly neutral, something that our lot are losing sight of.

    • Roger Dewhurst says:

      “Losing sight of” or “long lost sight of”. The latter perhaps.

    • Jane Davies says:

      Agree…. it seems the civil servants at the top have forgotten the ‘servant’ bit in their job descriptions. The tail has been wagging the dog for far too long.
      I must say though I am sick to death of every news bulletin starting with what Donald has done next and I’m starting to switch off both mentally and physically which goes against the grain for me being as I like keeping up with the current news.
      I’m fast approaching the point where I want the world to stop so that I can get off!

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        Think its ongoing demolition Jane…slow time. He’s already limited/frozen Govt/Agency activity so it can only get worse (for them) from here on. Its career review time I’d say. Commercial + State funded comms systems are digital rolling repetitive crap with so called news, shaped and targeted! Its pleasing to see that Trump has many of them targeted as well. Popcorn time?

        Interesting that the Tusk (EU) person has got the wind up. He and others had name plates in front of them yesterday I note. H E Donald Tusk. I immediately thought of His/Him Excellency? If so, who on earth do they think they are? Demolition required!

    • ian wragg says:

      It would be nice if our leaders and civil servants started to get a grip on immigration.
      I read in the Sunday papers how asylum cases are heard in secret with no reporting, we have 30 year old males claiming to be school children and being fostered by unsuspecting members of the public.
      It was interesting to hear Tusk yesterday saying the answer to Brexit and Trump was more Europe. Only the EU commission could deduce that dismay with the EU is because there isn’t enough of it.

  8. NeutralParty says:

    Regardless of ones view on this topic, the long-term implications cannot be ignored. The policy is counter-productive and only serves to embolden the very cause that Trump seeks to destroy – Islamist terrorism. It is playing right into the hands of the so-called Islamic State by giving them a “big, bad enemy” figure over in United States, messrs. Trump & co, alienating the very people that need to be won over. A misguided and ill-conceived policy that is unfortunately detrimental to world peace.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      That sounds/looks like appeasement. If not, whats your solution…catastrophic business as usual?

      • William Richards says:

        Well said Colin, America was sy=till demonised by backward muslim countries, even while the pro muslim Obama constantly lied to the America people about how “peaceful” islam is…something it never has been throughout its entire existence.

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        I think a big part of current “outrage” is that those conducting it know little about internal state laws, acts, rules, regs and related procedures. In the US its certainly a shock realisation that immigration/alien Acts were not enforced adequately. Suddenly they are…should not be any surprise to anyone except the extraordinarily arrogant and/or thick. I lived with my family in two M. East countries for 7 years and apart from the Saudi high pay grades telling me the place was lawless I was treated with common respect largely. I was invited into large mosques as an engineer and so on. However, I did easily identify those with alternate agendas (aliens)….to impact regionally and wider. I was there when the S. Arabian Grand Mosque was grabbed…real scary stuff. Thats when the BBC could be called useful.

    • Roger Dewhurst says:

      Bunkum. Islam is fundamentally anti Jewish, anti Christian, and Hindu, anti Sikh and just about anti everything else. The terrorists are simply all the muslims who are stupid enough to take their koran seriously enough to go on a killing spree. Even if that only amounts to 5% of them that is still a bloody lot.

  9. Ex-expat Colin says:

    I suggest posters here watch and listen carefully below. There are a couple of insults flung here (BBC and Ch4 news). It was skimmed by Ch4 the other night I think…blink, blink and gone.

    GWPF & FPA Press Briefing with Myron Ebell. 30 January 2017

  10. vanorman2016 says:

    President Donald Trump is doing a tremendous job in the face of adversity. He told the people what he would do when elected President and now he is keeping his word. Unusual for an American President. Certainly would not get this from Obama or Clinton. These, phobia maniacs of the truth, are frothing from the mouth while their brains are in neutral gear. Someone is probably paying them well since so many seem not to have jobs and can protest loudly and violently any time they choose. Patriotism is lost to these losers.

  11. John Poynton says:

    One wonders what the value of a temporary ban is anyway. If the threat is real it is not going away in 90 days, and it is unlikely we are going to find out any more about it during that time either. A better long term policy would be an upgraded immigration control system. For the UK see my catalytic proposal at
    Re Catalanbrian, I always point out that the level of hate directed at UKIP by his type is in itself a prejudice no different to racism. Physician heal thyself!

    • catalanbrian says:

      Holding a view that is opposed to those held by UKIP is a clear and rational decision, as is of course the reverse. Therefore it is not “a prejudice no different to racism” as you suggest. Racism is an irrational hatred of people of another race.

      • KennieD says:

        I see from your definition above (racism), that you still haven’t obtained a decent dictionary. “racism” is the semi-educated lazy derivitive of the English word “Racialism” and has been brought into the English common language by people like you.
        I suppose you also say things like ‘gobsmacked’ because you cannot remember words such as “speechless”.

      • Roger Dewhurst says:

        You do not know the meaning of race.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      The Exec Order identifies much more. 90 days is a first step to assess the failures in Immigration/Visitor entry management. There is a copy on CNN who I certainly don’t trust. Most other news opinion agencies splatter the EO text with home brew explanation. Expertators or some such?

      The 1st respondee to your post has missed the extra strength pills as well.

  12. dave roderick says:

    *New Immigration Laws*

    Be sure to read to the bottom or you will miss the message…

    1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

    2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language.

    3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

    4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

    5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.

    6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or any other government assistance programs. Any who are a burden will be deported.

    7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

    8. If foreigners come here and buy land, their options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

    9. Foreigners may have NO protests; NO demonstrations, NO waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, NO bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

    10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted and, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

    Too strict? The above laws are the current immigration laws of MEXICO!

  13. Richard111 says:

    Folks, please take a minute to look at this post about USA Presidents and banning claims.

    • vanorman2016 says:

      Thank you all who keep bringing us the Truth. The truth takes longer to get around the globe because of the lying, propaganda vomited out by the corrupt and depraved. Don’t worry folks, we, the patriotic, will succeed. The truth will out and blood will tell. So Big Brother just remember, sins have long shadows.

      • John Poynton says:

        How do you know it is not fake news?

      • vanorman2016 says:

        Well, there’s common sense, RT and filtering out the facts from propaganda in the press. The flood of strictly non-vetted migrants, the attacks on those who do not agree with the extreme Left, the rapes of women by some migrants, to name a few ‘incidents’. Surely one must agree that a ban until the vetting process is installed is not too much to ask? Is Europe doing so well by encouraging migrants? Does America have to endure the havoc before the truth dawns? Must Donald Trump also kow tow to Big Brother as Europe has had to, and so far the UK has had to?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s