F1,
Doesn't (or didn't, pending the legal battle) Trumps executive order prevent American Permanent Residents and those holding dual citizenship(of the listed countries) from re-entering what is technically "their country".
We would presume that the vetting process happened before these people were issued green cards or granted American citizenship. On what basis, other because he can, does POTUS prevent our people from returning to their homes?
He gives his justifications on the EO, but it doesn't make sense to me either. I think the Trump admin sorta/kinda admitted (without really admitting) it screwed up on that point by saying it wouldn't fight the first judge's ruling that negated that part. On the other hand, as for the judges who tossed out the entire EO, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
Good correction about Arabs. I know a few Persians. No Iranians though, since 1980 NOBODY I've ever met from there says Iranian, they always say Persian. My experiences have been with actual Arabs. And while there are Coptic Christians and people of other faiths in those lands....most Arabs are Muslims(unless I'm mistaken) and 95% of the experiences have been negative.
Those misguided Arabicized Africans in Sudan who waged war on people who looked just like them in the name of Shariah law can all take a flying leap. Ethnic and political conflict runs rampant across that continent and those fools adding another element to the mix...can take a long walk off a short pier.
Most people aren't aware of this, but it was the Muslim Arabs who created the worldwide African slave trade. When they forcibly converted the Christians and other Africans to Islam they brought their beliefs about slavery with them. They started with Egypt and Libya and Morocco followed. Muslim Egypt made a treaty with Christian Nubia (Sudan) that required an annual extortion tax that included 300 slaves. Because Nubia had excellent archers it was able to keep the Muslims at bay, but they wore them down. The Muslims took so many slaves from the area that the land was known as Abd (slaves), and some Muslims today still call blacks "abeed." Our English word "slave" comes from Muslims enslaving Eastern European Slavic tribes.
The sultan of Morocco then conquered a lot of Sub-Saharan Africa and began importing black slaves from there. West Africa had a large country known as the Ghana Empire. In around 1076 the Almoravid dynasty of Morocco captured it and it became Muslim. Part of Ghana became Mali, and Musa I of Mali (ruled c1312-1337) became the most powerful emperor in Africa. As a percentage of GDP, he may have been the wealthiest person ever. His wealth was built on the slave trade. It was from this slave trade that the first European (Portuguese) purchased African slaves in 1441.
I'm going to assume that the countries listed are also among the most poor and unstable in the "Muslim" world. Turbulent places are usually the ones that produce the most immigrants. I can trace my family's departure from Haiti to just before things got bad (my Dad had foresight) and I'm sure most people on this board are in America because bad conditions compelled their great great.etc.etc grand dads to leave home and forge a better way.
The countries not on the list, are just not producing the exodus of people that these more volatile places do. Saudi Arabia ALWAYS seems exempt from these "lists" even though I've read articles linking nationals to funding terrorism.
Saudi Arabia has never directly funded terrorism against the U.S. The Saudi government has, generally speaking, been an ally. That doesn't mean it's good. It's one of the most evil governments on Earth. The good thing is that the Saudis don't attack our allies and are enemies of our enemy, Iran and Sunni extremists (like ISIS). Individual Saudis do fund terrorism, but we have individual Americans who ARE terrorists.
