The stupidity and unfairness of Trump’s travel ban.


Trump’s travel  ban is coming into force. People from several Muslim countries have been prohibited from entering the United States for 90 days.

Trump has been in office for about 160 days. Now this travel ban is finally taking effect. Has the USA suffered at all in those 160 days from not having this ban? Not one iota. The United States has managed just fine without it. If this ban is so vital why is it for only 90 days?

President Trump is making some exceptions. This is a small acknowledgement of human decency. Therefore this is a very big step for Trump. Close relatives of American citizens shall be permitted to enter the USA even if they are from these forbidden countries. It begs the question; what if a relative of an American Citizen carries out an Attack? If these countries are so incredibly perilous why make any exemptions at all?

This rule is daft and unworkable. Trump has shown himself to be z coward and he appeals to fear/ He is stoking anti Muslim bigotry. Muslim tourists and students will take their busines elsewhere.

In the time that D J Trump has been in the office hundreds of Americans have been murdered. almost all by fellow Americans. Most slayings were carried out with firearms but he has done Nothing with gun control. He does not have the mettle to take on the gun nuts.

Millions of Americans die needlessly due to lack of decent medical care. Trump is adamant that the USA should increase the number of those without medical insurance.


About Calers

Born Belfast 1971. I read history at Edinburgh. I did a Master's at UCL. I have semi-libertarian right wing opinions. I am married with a daughter and a son. I am allergic to cats. I am the falling hope of the not so stern and somewhat bending Tories. I am a legal beagle rather than and eagle. Big up the Commonwealth of Nations.

101 responses »

  1. the temporary ban also exempts bonafide university students, Green Card holders, doctors and other professionals who would have been prevented from returning. It is to be hoped that the Supreme Court will either overturn Trump’s ban, or incorporate common-sense exclusions. Trump’s intent was originally to ban Muslims specifically, then they tried to clean that up by omitting the outrageous exceptions for Christians. The ban panders to Trump’s base of voters…

    • There are more dispensations than I realise. This makes a mockery of the entire thing which is to be welcomed. The whole edifice should not collapse on its own contradictions. Why exempt doctors? Is it impossible for them to be criminals? If physicians are exempt why not dentists. What if someone is dual nationality
      say Swedish and Somali? It is revolting and asinine.

      • as originally written the ban would include all “muslims” from the specified countries. It would have affected everyone…students, doctor staff on vacation or out of the country for whatever reason, even Green Card holders…so called aliens who had legitimate work permits at the time…much of the hubbub was about these groups. Fortunately the furor helped calm that down. Now the Supreme Court allowed much of the original ban to go through temporarily…but specifically exempts the legitimate individuals. Exchange students and grad students and etc. were affected in the original ban but not in the temporary rewrite. What Trump intended is to ban all Muslims…which the courts are saying is against our constitution. It’s a big fat mess..

      • How would one know someone is a Muslim? Asking him or her. A terrorist would be willing to lie. I am pleased that the courts have at least obliged Trump to water down the rule.

      • the lower appeals courts have ruled that the whole thing is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court let part of it stand at least temporarily. How do they know? The ban specifies 6 countries…but not any that have actually produced terrorist attacked us like Saudi Arabia… if one is entering the US having originated in one of those specified (Iraq, Iran, Syria,

      • one doesn’t “know” if someone is a Muslim…the Trump ban originally just banned “Muslims,” but then they rewrote the bill to omit the specificities that offend the Constituion. Several District Appeals Courts ruled against Trump. The Supreme Court ruling is temporary, allowing part of the ban to be enforced…but not all. Trump has his new appointee on the Supremes now, which threatens to tip the court to the Right. God forbid, but that’s just my opinion. The Justices are in there for life, or until they decide to quit, and some of the good ones are old…may leave the court…and the entire nation will be changed if Trump gets to appoint more…. God it scares me just thinking about it.

      • You are right. there is a danger that Trump may appoint justice to the Supreme Court who believe that religious discrimination is permissible.

      • there are nine justices, with a slight majority of Righties (is that a word? opposed to Lefties)) and their appointments last until they die or retire voluntarily. the biggie everyone is waiting for is over reproductive-rights… There are at least two or Trumpies consider “old” and ready to be replaced. (Aside: I will be 83 next week myself, so “old” is a relative term.)

      • Rightists and leftists? I like to think it is not that binary judges are not partisan. Everyone has opinions. An honourable judge will judge a case on its merits and deliver a ruling which h judge finds distasteful because if that is where the law and justice leads.

      • The nine Supreme Court justices are appointed by sitting presidents, and they serve on the court until they retire voluntarily or die. Trump appointed the most recent, who is already showing his conservative leanings. This creates a 5 to 4 majority that could…could…might…cater to decisions that will change certain rulings to the law of the land and reverse them.

      • People have long fretted about this. Are there any examples where this has occurred? That means where a reactionary agenda has been furthered by such juriconsults? People often cite Roe v Wade as something a judge with a distinctly conservative penchant might overturn. In over 40 years it has not occurred. That does not guarantee that it never shall. Incidentally I am somewhat sympathetic to he pro Life side. However; some of the pro Life tactics such s in Texas really have i,pacted on women who are not even seeking terminations. They brought in absurdly onerous rules about doctors who perform abortions having to have admission rights at a hospital within twenty miles of their clinic etc…. This made ordinary gynaecological services hrder obtain

      • yes, abortion rights IS the elephant in the room. Roe v Wade will soon come again to the court’s table…it will be fascinating to watch. Gorsuch, the newest justice, is the huge ??? Back during the 2000 election, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote ruling settled a vote-recount in Florida, …and subsequently Al Gore lost the election 2000 to George W Bush. Theoretically the Supremes are apolitical…but in practice they tend to follow the party-line. .

      • If the decision is based on constitutional issues alone, the law could persist as now is he law; but if religious views prevail, it may be overturned. Without the newest justice, Gorsuch, a vote to repeal Roe v Wade would likely be 4 yes 4 no. So in theory Gorsuch would cast the deciding vote…he is an unknown entity, and pro-rights people are holding their breath waiting for a new test to the amendment. Many of the Trump-basers voted for him because they think his appointee (Gorsuch) is likely to vote to over-turn Roe v Wade.

      • It is hard for a passionately religious person to switch off their religious instincts when mulling over a matter of jurisprudence.

      • yes, absolutely! Personal religious beliefs can’t be discounted, and should always be respected. However, the caveat to that is that the reverse is also true… my beliefs must also be respected. There is no black or white in these kinds of issues. But the absolute worst is when religion is used as a pretense for political gain.

      • Sometimes I ask myself how I would be if I was a judge? I might be scrupulously fair and follow the law. Or I might say; the law be damned I am going advance my own agenda.

      • Local judges who are elected by the voters are supposed to be apolitical, but because they are competing for local votes it is natural for them to be cognizant of public views. These Federal District Judges … such as the 9th District (includes Hawaii and Oregon, etc.) that are holding up Trump’s “travel ban” appear to be taking a strict interpretation of existing laws Technically the Supreme Court is above party affiliation, but the crux of the matter is that they are human, and therefore opinionated on some level. Meddling with the constitution may be an ethical consideration…but I’m no expert.

      • I m satisfied that this inane and retrograde travel ban is being whittled down. Trump and some of his lieutenants have long bragged that they are forbidding Muslims from entering the country. Now that they know this is illegal they have to thinly disguise the anti Muslim nature of this foul order. I have lived in Muslim lands, worked for Muslims, have Muslim colleagues, Muslim housemates girlfriends.

      • the modifications, like the ban, are temporary…the Supreme Court has yet to rule, I think they will declare it unconstitutional because of Trumps bragging about “banning Muslims.”

      • The more holdups and exemptions the more this bill becomes a dead letter. It is already moth eaten. What a monstrous breach of protocol by Trump to skewer the judges for performing their duty. They are there to uphold the law. They neither support nor oppose the executive. Judges have not strayed into the political arena and lambasted this ghastly anti -Muslim president.

      • The Supreme Court is supposed to be ruling today on appeal by Hawaii district court to modify the “ban” to allow grandparents to be included among exemptions.

      • it’s a mixed-bag sort of, allows gramp&gram and people with bona-fide credentials for being here. T’s new appointee voting with the trumpies.

      • another Big Deal provision of the constitution is Brown v BOE (Board of Education) in which the Supreme Court ruled on the subject of segregation…white vs black. The decision was and is that “separate but equal” is inherently Unequal as long as the separation existed. Although I am not an Educator per se I do have certain views of our educational system. My own kids, grands, greats…actually have had, or do have…what I consider excellent public education from preschool into various college levels.

      • I am elated that education is racially mixed. Separate but equal was never equal. I realise Brown v The Board of Education is a very long time ago. Big up race mixing!

      • to each his own religious beliefs as long as they are not thrust on ME. Theoretically worship of frogs could be considered religious freedom.

      • it doesn’t exempt doctors etc from the original it applied to docs that had been working legit at hospitals etc with proper credentials but then got into the trouble when they returned from legit reasons for being out of the country…that is they had proper papers but the stupid ban was so worded that these people had to scramble to straighten out so they could go back to work. Trump is insane…that’s my unbiased opinion 🙂

      • Such a physician could still kill someone. No occupation is exempt from the possibility of being a terroist. Ayman Al Zahawiri ; the leader of Al Qa’eda is a paediatrician. I concur that Trump is detestable and exceptionally stupid. I say he is stupid not simply because I loathe him. There are wicked people who are very brainy.

      • no… the physicians mentioned are only part of an existing body of persons already possessing legal work papers…they already are working at hospitals or wherever, or are bona fide students, or have other close relationship to Americans. Physicians are not affected per se..under the original ban ALL from the specific countries were refused re-entry or entry no matter who they were. The issue is that the original ban created havoc at ports of entry. Under the proposed ban ANY person from for instance Syria…would not be allowed to enter no matter WHO they are…. which in itself created a situation whereby persons were affected that already held legitimate credentials to work or study or live in the U.S.

      • Actually some nut of physician DID kill someone just a few days ago. It was apparently a personal purpose that he had rather than just randomly killing people because he had a gun.

      • he wasn’t an illegal immigrant…just some homegrown nut. Killed his girlfriend, I think…does that count? This kind of atrocity is old-hat by now here…where 3-year-old kids get killed in drive-by shootings. really…

      • Over 100 people were shot dead in Chicago over a weekend recently. What is Trump doing about this problem which is killing Americans? He is instead fighting chimera because it appeals to anti Muslim bigots.

      • good question. I don’t know as he is doing anything about this killing, but then I shudder to think what repressive ideas may come from someone like him.

      • the NRA, National Rifle Association, is extremely powerful. The populace tends to support the 2nd Amendment “right” to guns. The Congress is terrified of the gun lobby. Many states have open-carry laws, which allows people to run around with guns. I am not a gun enthusiast.

      • A clear majority of Americans want gun control. This does not entail confiscating al weapons. It would simply involve background checks on all persons buying guns or ammunition with no loopholes for gun fairs. It i easier o an automatic weapon than a beer. What the hell is this? There are all sorts of things which can be done to drastically reduce the bloodletting. Put a massive tax on guns and ammo. Charge people for a gun licence. Gun and bullet manufacturers should be lega al l or crimes committed with their products.. Raise the age for possessing guns to 21 outside the military. o

      • these very sensible suggestions actually are in place, sort of. The gun-people say they are afraid that taxes and restrictions on gun ownership would lead to confiscation of guns. I know people who actually believe the government could come to their homes and seize their guns. This was one of the things Pres. Obama was disliked for…that and of course, being black.

      • the Trump base not only is anti-muslim, but also anti-Mexican, anti-anyone who is not a white “Christian” god-fearing bible thumper. Bigots…uneducated, non-thinking — well I’m basically a lady, so I’m running out of print-appropriate adjectives. 🙂

      • Too true! He has some Hispanic backers but very few of Mexican ancestry. In fairness to Trump he did say some Mexicans were good. However; Tmp

      • There is much wilful mendacity on his part. He is an arriviste, an egomaniac and he closes his mind to unalluring information.

      • the only reason I mentioned “doctors” was as an example of people working legitimately in the US that if banned would cause big problems for big hospital personnel who happened to be trying to RETURN from a “bad” country. University graduate exchange students are another example. Sure, anyone can snap and go on a murderous rampage…just hope it isn’t the family doctor. 🙂

      • Indeed. Exempting one occupation demonstrates yet again how illogical this order is. But I want more illogical lacuane. More and more exceptions will mean the order is on moth eaten must be abandoned.

      • the acting attorney general tried to tell the WH that the ban order was illegal and she would not order it to be carried out…so Trump fired her.

      • This is yet another example of how moronic and childish Trump is. The man is bereft of all objectivity. A wise person welcomes reproof. One needs candid advice. If this fool hears advice that he dislikes then he dismisses the person from his or her post.

      • yes…Trump appeals to the very worst base, directly against what the US theoretically…key word there…represents. I have nothing to offer that is good about Trump. Not a word. But then, I tend to be a left-wing thinker and the opposite of Trumpites.

      • Nativism, xenophobia, religious hatred etc… He is all for execrating minorities. His agenda is tax cutting for billionaires welfare cutting for the poor. He is a militarist and war monger. D J Trump is utterly idiotic, irrational mendacious. I am a right winger and revile Trump. There is a difference between being right wing and being total merkin.

      • just because insanity may cover flaws it doesn’t excuse them. This man needs to be punished for what he is doing and wants to do, the terrible unrest brewing here. I hope they can start official impeachment proceedings pretty soon.

      • my completely unbiased opinion of Trump’s “base” is largely due to their lack of adequate education… although it is not the “accepted norm” is discriminatory….based on attitude and position. It is sad but true.

      • You are correct. There is objective data to support your contention. There are highly educated Trumpsters but they are chiefly very affluent people who wish to pay less tax. Some of the well educated are bigots too.

      • My own opinion is that our education system favors the elite and oligarchs. The opportunities are not equal, no matter what they say. My own position is that all children should receive exactly the same education, but that isn’t the case. Now they have or want to have something called Common Core…a nightmare if they ask me. Religion is a big component to that, of course, and I must add that I am widely opposed by my ideas and belief of equality for all. Some call us bleeding heart liberals…indeed, I guess so. 🙂

      • Would you abolish private schools? Do all states now follow Common Core? What about states’ rights? Do you accept eahc doing ns differently? I know states’ rights can be a smokescreen to hide injustice. But education was supposed to be in the purview of the states not the Federal Government.

      • In my utopia all children would learn a basic set of facts: but be provided with tools to think information through and understand their own use of those facts. Granted that all children are not capable of…or permitted…to apply individual thought as a matter of course. Abolishing private schools…no. Common Core has been adopted by some states, not others. The squabble over CC is that federal rules are imposed over States’ rights. This is a huge can of worms of course. My opinion is that nothing is ever black or white…always infinite variations, therefore “facts” at illusive and vary according to circumstances. “Situational ethics” perhaps.

      • I do not have a settled view on his. Having a deep attachment o a state makes little sense to me. Not many people die in th e at the e born in. Few have both parents from the same state as themselves.

      • This has not been my experience. My background is Ohio based. In my small city family ties go back many generations. I don’t really have any statistics off the top of my head on this subject, but I would begin with the assumption that regional connections exist mainly except during special circumstances such as military, ethnic, university types, etc. My family, and those of both of my husbands, are Ohioans back to when they (not me, I am English) hark back to Germany early 19th Century.

      • I just posted an url for origin and residence. Also, I plan to write an article shortly which details some information of Ohio History, specifically the move West from Massachusets, where many of our (my) forebears arrived here on land grants. Ohio became a state in 1803.

      • While living in Germany in US Army quarters in the 1950s, my two best friends were from Kentucky and Tennessee, respectively. The one from TN especially was always bragging and/or complaining about the US Civil War (1850s). As an Ohio girl I got an education about the evils of Yankee occupation. 🙂

      • yes, both my great-grandfathers on Dad’s side were veterans of the Civil War. I have their discharge papers. They were very young officers, barely past 18, so didn’t really leave Ohio.

      • People grew up fast then. They had to. People lived for less tim so the were considered adults in their mid teens. Plus back then we did not waste most people’s time y keeping them in school.

      • private schools should exist to enforce and continue specific points of view…religion, ethnic mores, personal belief, etc. But these qualities should be refinements of basic educational facts.

      • Here is an example. My grandson told his teacher that his great-grandfather came from Australia. The teacher said to him that “no one is from Australia.” He stated a fact…she a fallacy. My grandfather, his father and HIS father were all born in Australia. Acually..they were German by nationality, but that was a whole different issue, not under discussion in that 4th grade classroom.

      • The Aborigines are from Austrralia. EVEN they moved there from somewhere else 20 000 years ago. By this teacher’s rationale white Americans are not from America. It gets silly if one goes back too far. We all come from the Rift Valley so we are all Kenyan.

      • yes there are the Aborigines… my forbears (the Aussies) moved to Australia from Germany I do not know the exact circumstances. Grandpa’s wife’s family was from England, or Wales. Someone who did a family tree is said to have found “a Viking” way back when.

      • The Viking ancestry is unsurprising. Vikings raided many coastal communities in northern Europe. They also settled in places and their descendants intermarried with the locals.

      • yes, I know that. My ancestors as far back as I know are from the British isles over there. The Viking-tale is just interjected to explain the blonde hair-blue eyes that pop up in the strain. , I think. Now my extended family includes “all kinds” of people, runs from nordic-types to Italians, two of my German/English daughters married Italians… But in keeping with our previous conversation, almost all are from the state of Ohio by birth and long timers. Here in the US “we” only go back to the late 18th Century. That’s another story. 🙂

      • Indeed. Viking goes for anyone from Scandinavia I suppose . I realise the Vikings were ghastly but there were some positive aspects to their culture. WHo wasn’t horrid then? twas the Dark Ages.

      • Indeed. Life was cheap. Most people lived in semi-servitude. Any notion of human rights did not exist in Europe but did in India and Persia.

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