trump-protest

Trump’s travel ban, right or wrong?

I am tempted to ask, “Has the world gone mad?” But unfortunately, I already know the answer. It is hard to know where to start talking about the subject of Precedent Trump’s travel ban. In many ways, I would rather ignore it altogether. The Red Pill Report is intended to focus on the UK and some European issues, but the reaction to Trump’s travel ban is powerfully affecting the UK.

From reactionary left-wing activists to members of the British parliament, people are weighing in, and are very vocal about this subject, many of them, including the politicians, appear to be ill-informed or to be reacting rather than considering the actual facts.

Yesterday, we had Sadiq Khan, the Lord Mayor of London, telling senior diplomats that, the international community, must show “moral leadership” by speaking out against Donald Trump’s travel ban. He apparently urged global leaders to condemn the US President’s “cruel, prejudiced and counterproductive.” while eleven countries represented at the event ban Jews from entering. So this is in many ways a UK issue and a Fack News issue.

Let us step back, try to get the emotion out of the question about whether Trump’s TEMPORARY travel ban is right or wrong, moral or immoral, and let us look at some of the facts.

Banning travel permanent or temporary is not restricted to the Trump administration. In 2011 the Obama administration put in place a six-month ban on immigration from Iraq. People have tried to justify Obama’s ban as being justified and Trumps as being evil, but the truth is that there is not any substantial way in which they are morally different. Yes, it was only one country, but it was for six months. NO PROTESTS about that.

Obama’s ban focused on refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. In my opinion, this makes Obama’s travel ban more not less harsh.

Is Trump focusing on banning Muslims?

Yes, they are majority Muslim countries, but Trump’s ban is only on around 12% of all Muslims. 88% of Muslims are still free to seek to emigrate to America.

Trump has put in place a temporary travel ban from seven countries. Obama bombed five of those countries. When you have been killed by a US bomb, that is not temporary. No protests about Obama’s bombing.

Should you ban a group based on their religion?

A difficult one. Good arguments can be made for it being wrong to judge people’s eligibilities for asylum based on their religion. However, Islam is very closely associated with a great many groups that are extremely violent and murderous in action. Sin affects more than just the sinner. When some Muslims do bad things in the name of Islam, it naturally makes people unsure of Muslims, and many people find it hard to know… really know, which Muslims may be violent and which ones will not be.

If the Salvation Army used guns and bombs to spread Christianity, you might be unsure if you want a Christian living next door to you.

Trump does not appear to be saying that Muslims should not be allowed to enter America, but that America needs to be able to do a better job of establishing whether the person attempting to enter the USA, is radicalised or not. That does not appear to be too terrible.

Trump is not the only person who could be accused of religious discrimination. During the Obama eight years, almost no Christians were allowed to into America as refugees from Syria, even though there were by far the most at risk of being killed.

It appears that the United States barred or blocked Christian refugees from Syria. In total, the United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees. The number of Christians within that number was just 56. Around one million Christians have either been killed or driven out of Syrian over the last few years, but the USA had accepted just 56. Where are the protests about this?

America is proposing a temporary ban on a few countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and the UAE, have NOT taken one single Sirian refugee. Where are the protests about this?

Under Obama, U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of his tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. In 2016, under Obama, America dropped 26,171 bombs. While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, bombs also rained down from American plains on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. That is seven majority-Muslim countries. No mass protests.

What did the Obama administration achieve by these eight years of fighting on so many fronts? Terrorism has spread, no wars have been “won”, and the Middle East is consumed by more chaos and divisions than when Barack Obama received his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

On top of all of this, immigration really is not the answer to the world’s poor. Most immigrants are the abler from any country and most countries that take immigrants, except for the extreme refugees, tend to be the more skilled. We almost invariably hear the call for more skilled immigration. Virtually every country is seeking ways to make it easier for skilled immigration and harder for unskilled immigration. What this leads to, is the greater growth of skills and industry in the UK and other wealthy countries, and the delution of skills and expertise in the areas of the world that most need entrepreneurs and growth in its industries. However, that is really moving on to another subject.

Let us sum up this article by saying that: “Those who are outraged at Trump’s temporary travel ban appear to be either, disingenuous or ill-informed.”

Posted in Featured, News, UK Politics, World Politics and tagged , .

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.