29 January 2017

Selectively limiting immigration

Much has been made of Trump's assertion that he would give favorable consideration to Christians from Muslim countries.  This point deserves emphasis:
The executive action, "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," targets seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Trump has no business interests in those countries.
And this:
One other thing they have in common, as NPR's Greg Myre writes: "No Muslim extremist from any of these places has carried out a fatal attack in the U.S. in more than two decades."

The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business.

He has significant commercial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, is developing properties in Indonesia and Dubai, and has formed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His daughter Ivanka said in 2015 that the company was looking at "multiple opportunities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — the four areas where we are seeing the most interest."
More at NPR.


  1. FWIW, I've seen the points you list made in every news report I've read about Trump's immigration order.

    1. My fault. I've been limiting my reading of current events. Text modified. Thanks, Swift.

  2. While I absolutely believe that Christians should be given preference--NOT because they are any better than anyone else, but simply because they do tend to reflect that majority view of our own nation, and will likely fit in better, with less danger of eventually changing the overall views of the nation--I do indeed believe that Trump should play fair. If we are barring some Muslims, we should be sure that we aren't giving anyone preference just for monetary reasons. After all, Osama bin Laden, I understand, was a Saudi Arabian.

    1. To be fair, I don't believe that families fleeing a war-torn nation are worried about fitting in. They're worried about the survival of their children. A Christian would prioritize children's lives over any discomfort felt at a potential cultural shift, especially a Christian secure in his or her own faith.

      I also don't believe that the teachings of the Bible (see the books of Luke, Hebrews, Matthew, James, John, and Philippians) mention majority views when considering aid to strangers.

    2. Careful, the argument that Christians will likely "fit in better" is a dangerous one. Not that different than what many people used to voice their approval for segregation practices.

      You have terrorists in all religions and the majority of Muslim people have the same principals and values as Christians. Christians should not be given a preference. After all, it's not like anyone can "prove" they are a Christian anyway. It's an asinine restriction.

    3. I have noticed that people who make a point of telling others that they are Christian often do not believe in some of Jesus' basic teachings, such as feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, caring for the sick, etc. Besides that, our country's Constitution clearly states that there shall be no State Religion. And we're not supposed to discriminate against people because of race, color, or creed.

  3. Thoroughly interesting. Thank you for posting this was needed as my weekends often become news bubbles.

    When it comes to the selective nature of this executive action perhaps we should also look closely at Exxon (and Big Oils) interests in this area. How are these actions affecting corporate negations of the spoils of this war? The Trump administration may be delivering on their promise to eliminate lobbyist simply by eliminating civilian intermediaries.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...