OftenWrong Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, kactus said: You keep changing goal posts...Your argument was that they cannot assimilate hence the ban. Now blaming it on security issues. That is totally different argument... Now to the point...Exactly how is refusing a PHD medical student a security issue to US? Many travel on student visas. The first travel ban even did not allow green card holders. This has now been revised and quite rightly so. Your assumptions on lack of security or lack of cooperation on the part Iranian government is subjective based on your judgement of what the US deems as a security issue at its borders. Reality is such a ban would only punish genuine people from travelling to US or who may be running away from prosecution in their country and nothing to do with them being a threat to the security IMHO in which case one would question the integrity of the travel ban and who it is aimed at.... I don't think I argued they cannot assimilate. I generally argue they must assimilate. The reasons for the travel ban were made clear since day one when the first attempted ban came out. At that time I recall I read the White House Executive Order which was published on their web site, which gave the exact reasons. I posted a link to it here. The media reported that President Obama had already identified 7 countries on a list whose citizens could not be properly vetted, but this information was hard to find above the screaming from leftists. Reasons given include countries where there is no reliable form of government in control, hence the information received is not up to standards. In other cases (Iran), because the government is openly hostile to the USA. Their information cannot be trusted. It's unfortunate for the people of Iran that they are caught in the middle of a conflict, but their own government has sworn to be the enemy of the United States. I cannot see any other fair option. As for the well-educated good people of Iran, I feel for them but that does little. The proposed ban is only temporary, I believe it was set for 90 days. I did not read the second executive order. Edited March 21, 2017 by OftenWrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) This is an interesting read by the Independent. Whilst not a great advicate of the government in Iran the article focuses on some positive notes and holds Iran as an 'exemplary' model for sheltering 3mil Afghan refugees for four decades! This article goes further to describe the implications of travel ban by Trump. Here's an excerpt: "The new ban - which could affect the one million Iranian nationals living and studying in the US - was slapped down on Wednesday by a federal court in Hawaii on the grounds it could cause “irreparable injury.” Full article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-refugee-resettlement-efforts-exemplary-un-praise-united-nations-a7633621.html Edited March 21, 2017 by kactus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 53 minutes ago, kactus said: This is an interesting read by the Independent. Whilst not a great advicate of the government in Iran the article focuses on some positive notes and holds Iran as an 'exemplary' model for sheltering 3mil Afghan refugees for four decades! This article goes further to describe the implications of travel ban by Trump. Here's an excerpt: "The new ban - which could affect the one million Iranian nationals living and studying in the US - was slapped down on Wednesday by a federal court in Hawaii on the grounds it could cause “irreparable injury.” Full article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-refugee-resettlement-efforts-exemplary-un-praise-united-nations-a7633621.html It's hard to get past the opening sentence- "Iran, one of the states targeted by Donald Trump’s Muslim ban..." Since it clearly is NOT a Muslim ban, because Muslims from all other countries are not affected. When I read things like this it already sets a questionable tone. Leftist rhetoric. The article intends to portray the Ayatollah and government of Iran in a favourable light. It's great that they helped to harbor the refugees, for 40 years. Upon closer examination some 500,000 Afghan refugee children do not go to school. My question is why they didn't give them access to schools. I found the following information-Human Rights Watch report that many undocumented Afghan children face bureaucratic obstacles that prevent their children from attending school, in violation of international law. Furthermore- Iranian law limits Afghans who have permission as refugees to work to a limited number of dangerous and poorly paid manual labor jobs, regardless of their education and skills. The Iranian government has also failed to take necessary steps to protect its Afghan population from physical violence linked to rising anti-foreigner sentiment in Iran, or to hold those responsible accountable. Afghans in Iran Sorry it's not all about peace and love. Edited March 21, 2017 by OftenWrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 8 hours ago, OftenWrong said: Quote It's hard to get past the opening sentence- "Iran, one of the states targeted by Donald Trump’s Muslim ban..." Since it clearly is NOT a Muslim ban, because Muslims from all other countries are not affected. When I read things like this it already sets a questionable tone. Leftist rhetoric. The whole notion for posting that article was to emphasise on the ridiculousness of the EO by Trump which initially didn't have any legal basis and subsequently upheld by the supreme court. The article about the plight of Afghan refugees was posted to illustrate that even a country like Iran some like to reference it with 'primitive laws' have taken a positive step towards refugee resettlement efforts...The new travel ban in US or Travel Ban 2 still does not address the security concerns by banning these countries and leaving out real culprits like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and UAE (the phoney allies...) Which brings me to my next point re: "Muslim Ban". A comment, which I have invariably seen repeated by Trump supporters... Iran is a majority Muslim country so are the rest of the counties in the revised banned list. So this whole notion that it is not a 'Muslim ban' is absurd since all those 6 countries are Muslims. Obviously, not the whole 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. IMO it is a radical view to not call it a Muslim ban just because 1.5 billion Muslims around the world are not included in that list... But more importantly, getting away with these semantics this is about people and not just labels.... Muslims are citizens of those countries (they could be lawyers, PHD students and professionals) that have been indiscriminately punished and disallowed entry to US of A. A country that is meant to be the beacon of democracy and an example to look upon is failing miserably in this regard... Quote The article intends to portray the Ayatollah and government of Iran in a favourable light. It's great that they helped to harbor the refugees, for 40 years. Upon closer examination some 500,000 Afghan refugee children do not go to school. My question is why they didn't give them access to schools. I found the following information- Like I said I am no advocate of the regime in Iran but trying to remain factual and unbiased especially when it comes to dealing with ordinary people and refugees.. If you finished reading the article I posted that would have addressed your concern here.... Quote While Afghans resident in Iran - especially those who are undocumented - are often marginalised to the fringes of society as poorly paid manual workers, and are not allowed to apply for citizenship, the Tehran government has also recently taken positive steps such as ordering schools to take in all Afghan children, and embarked on a health insurance scheme that covers refugees. The UN is fostering hopes that the country will ease work permit restrictions and register more undocumented Afghans in the future. The recency of the article in the Independent should give a hint that the UN has already addressed the school issue for Afghan children refugees.The article was just published on 16th March 2017! Quote Human Rights Watch report that many undocumented Afghan children face bureaucratic obstacles that prevent their children from attending school, in violation of international law. Furthermore- Iranian law limits Afghans who have permission as refugees to work to a limited number of dangerous and poorly paid manual labor jobs, regardless of their education and skills. The Iranian government has also failed to take necessary steps to protect its Afghan population from physical violence linked to rising anti-foreigner sentiment in Iran, or to hold those responsible accountable. Afghans in Iran The article you posted comes from Wiki which is: 1- Not a vetted source 2- There is no date to validate the recency as changes to the law may have already taken place vis-à-vis the plight of Afghan children at school Quote Sorry it's not all about peace and love. Well I wouldn't sound as melodramatic as you but if the governments including the US wanted to make efforts to really make their country safe again they could certainly make the efforts and deal with pertinent issues above more objectively.... But, I guess that would be wishful thinking.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, kactus said: The whole notion for posting that article was to emphasise on the ridiculousness of the EO by Trump which initially didn't have any legal basis and subsequently upheld by the supreme court. No, the travel ban injunctions have not been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Temporary injunctions are being adjudicated in lower level federal courts. Nothing special about Iranians (Persians).....Nobel Prize winner and President Jimmy Carter had no problem banning Iranians. Trump can ban them too. The travel ban is not against all Muslims, and the banned nations are not 100% Muslim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 11 hours ago, OftenWrong said: I don't think I argued they cannot assimilate. I generally argue they must assimilate. When you state something like this: Then it gives the reader an impression that you are concluding Iranians cannot assimilate into US and American culture. With that in mind, this is why I questioned you several times if you know this is happening in Canada or US or is it just a blanket hearsay statement to support the ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 11 hours ago, kactus said: When you state something like this: Then it gives the reader an impression that you are concluding Iranians cannot assimilate into US and American culture. With that in mind, this is why I questioned you several times if you know this is happening in Canada or US or is it just a blanket hearsay statement to support the ban. Allow me to help the reader then: On 2017-03-18 at 10:16 AM, OftenWrong said: We are talking about the culture where they come from, and problems that arise when they bring it with them. Assimilation is the key thing that's needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.