Trump showing some restraint with travel ban

Leftists should not object too much to Trumps travel ban as it was the Obama Administration that identified Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen as “growing threats.”

By Robert Gold, Staff Writer 

On Jan. 27, President Trump signed an executive order suspending the United States refugee program for 120 days, during which time the White House can reassess the merits of our refugee-vetting system. The order bans citizens of seven majority Muslim countries; Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq.

First, this is not a Muslim ban. It only bans people from seven countries. Furthermore, if you are Christian and happen to live in one of these seven countries, you are also banned from entering the United States. If this were a Muslim ban, there would be many more countries included.

Second, those who have disparaged, criticized and undermined Trump’s executive order, don’t understand that this is a bipartisan issue. Let us remind our Leftist brothers and sisters that it was the Obama Administration who originally signed a law in December 2015 placing travel limitations on visitors from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria. Two months later, in what was reportedly called an effort to address the “growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters,” Libya, Somalia and Yemen were added to the list.

For those who have argued that foreign nationals from this list have not been perpetrators of attacks on American soil, let us address a number of various cases reported over the past several years. In 2011, two Iraqi refugees Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi were arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky for allegedly aiding and abetting Al-Qaeda operatives through the shipment of weapons and money from the United States to Iraqi Insurgents. In November 2016, Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan reportedly stabbed 13 students at Ohio State University with a butcher knife.

Finally, let us address European attitudes towards Muslim immigration. In a study carried out by UK-based think tank Chatham House, an average of 55 percent of Europeans surveyed in Britain, Italy ,France and seven other countries, agreed that further migration from majority Muslim countries should be stopped. Therefore, we must acknowledge that Donald Trump’s policies are not obscure and they are not out of the mainstream. They are firmly in line with the actions taken by the Obama Administration and in comparison to what the Europeans are activating for, Trump has if anything shown compromise and restraint.



  1. Although I can understand the rationale behind your argument, it is foolish to ban citizens of several countries from entering the United States simply based on fears of terrorists infiltrating. Such a small fraction of these countries’ populace is actually in support of Jihadist, let alone destructive, tendencies, that it makes no sense to harm millions of others’ livelihoods due to blatant xenophobia.

  2. Great article. To quote one of tree great philosophers Aquinas “The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

  3. This is a great article! It does a fantastic job of imitating those recent “fake news” style stories, you know, the ones where a false statement is made by or about Trump and is “supported” by entirely irrelevant arguments. To wit:
    If the point of the story is Trump has “shown compromise and restraint”, then

    #1- I concede that your are 100% factually correct.

    #2. – You are saying that if someone criticized the order then, they don’t understand that immigration is a bipartisan issue. How does understanding that immigration is of interest to both Democrats and Republicans have any relevance?
    At first glance, the rest of the paragraph seems to suggest that left-handed people need to be reminded that immigrant paranoia existed pre-Trump and maybe it did. However, after some “fact checking” we discover that both the law and the amendment thereto were laws that were developed and approved by both houses of Congress; and then went to Obama for approval or veto. It is this method by which the USA is supposed to be governed. Trump is trying to bypass the entire process by using a power that is supposed to be reserved for use in emergency situations. Presidents don’t make law, on the other hand kings and dictators do.

    In the next paragraph, it is argued that because a couple of guys from Iraq bought some rifles and tried to mail them back to Iraq—no one from Iraq should be allowed to come here. Then another example incident in which an individual stabbed some college students, which because he was born in Somalia warrants the doors being closed to all Somalis? Following this logic, only natural born citizens of Antarctica should be allowed to visit or move here. Americans would surly be unable to travel using that reasoning.

    Finally, the final paragraph-my favorite. I like it because of the originality of the argument offered; because a survey of residents of several European (not in America) countries agreed with a statement saying that immigration (into their country, in Europe) should be stopped; we must conclude that Trump is just like Obama! It also magically proves that he is mainstream and does not have obscure policies, too, wow.
    To Breitbart this story should go!

Your thoughts?