There was a recent “strike” by Yemeni bodega owners in NYC. (A bodega is a small convenience store)
Yet the news doesn’t report that all the other Muslim countries in the middle east have come out in support of his temporary measures
Of course not. The bias in news reporting to the leftist agenda is so blatant it’s ridiculous.
Can you give me some evidence for this statement?
Here’s a report regarding the UAE to start.
This article only mentions a statement by the foreign minister of one Muslims country and refers to the Gulf Arab countries. That’s hardly evidence that all or most Muslim majority countries support Trump’s ban. Even the Gulf countries and other Muslim allies are probably remaining silent because they don’t want to antagonize Mr. Trump, not necessarily because they all agree with him.
You mean the agenda that already spends about 2 years vetting out immigrants from those seven countries listed?
What exactly is this Trump ban supposed to do? I think they’ll be arguing this out in the courts for some time.
Many restaurants, hotels, convenient stores or neighborhood markets are owned by immigrants. Of course, many of these businesses employ foreigners too. I applaud them for taking part in the American dream, but it is too bad they aren’t concerned about why this is being done. This is the wealth of the liberal progressives fighting back against Trump and if you support Trump and his policies you are the bad guy.
These people had the power during the Obama years, but lost the election and don’t want to give up their power. There is a lot of money and power behind all of these
movements and it is too bad people are so gullible and make easy victims.They are pawns and being used only they don’t realize it.
I don’t presume that people who support Trump’s ban are racist even though I cannot understand it otherwise; don’t presume you know the motives of those who are against it.
Immigration was an issue in Europe before the US due to the influx of Syrians. There was a divide there too, long before the real influx of refugees into Germany etc. Generally, the people against them coming were the ‘we should take care of our homeless first’ crowd - note that they were silent about homeless prior to this and homeless families are far better off that the refugees anyway (at least in Ireland, where homeless families are put up in hotels). Generally people who support homeless on a regular basis don’t see why we can’t do both.
When this was happening, the outrage that the ‘liberal’ people felt had nothing to do with Trump, or politics… It had to do with helping those in need and the intrinsic right that refugees have to refuge.
There are people who just don’t like multiculturalism. There are people who are against Muslims in particular for whatever reason. Then there are people who see war + refugee = moral obligation to help and aren’t willing to punish an entire religion for the crimes of a few crazy people.
Are some people jumping on the bandwagon? Yes of course. In america, Republicans could pass a bill ordering everyone to dye their hair blue white and red and some.people would defend it: same with democrats. But the level of outrage in the US is rooted in the anger that people feel. An objective description of what Trump did would be enough to outrage me, just like I would not need the media to spin a story about and old lady being mugged for me to feel angry.
Reading the article there is a lot of talk about how they are migrants or the children of migrants. They don’t seem to realise that Trump doesn’t have a problem with legal migration. It is illegal migration and migration for a very small number of risky states that he has issues with.
They’re acting as though all migrants are been turned back at the door.
why is a temporary ban an outrage? the media and the liberals stir up the controversy. we are already a multicultural nation. I lived in a huge city in the Southwest. People from all over the world make it their home. We do have immigration laws and rules and if our new president feels there is a need to put a temporary ban on immigration to improve the safety of Americans I have no problem. The liberals are still angry and stupified they lost and want to fight Trump on everything. when I see and hear about the problems they have had in Germany, France and Sweden to name a few, I don’t want that to happen here.
The government run education system spends 12-16 years educating yet the final result is mostly very poorly educated students. The government spending two years doing something is in no way an indicator it has done anything at all.
The purpose of the ban is irrelevant. Trump has statutory power to control immigration. That the courts have interfered already is yet another example of the loss of democracy replaced by rule of the black robes.
And why is that newsworthy? (I’m sure it is reported somewhere - just not on page 1 as you would like.)
Did you support Obama against the court interference in his immigration executive order?
What interference was that? I’m not sure what you are talking about.
The separation of powers is what it is. If taken to the extreme the Supreme Court could theoretically void not only Trump’EO but the vetting process already in progress. Talk about a botched EO.
Not sure why you mention the executive order as botched or the separation of powers. The separation of powers doesn’t allow the courts to interfere in all matters. For instance the courts have no right to review every military decision or to review the choice of paint used in the White House. What is botched is the courts who have wrongly involved themselves.
We need a comprehensive list of these restaurants so that we may walk in at any hour of the day and night and help ourselves and face no legal repercussions