Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Trumps Ban On Muslims
Muslim teacher Juhel Miah denied entry to US 'not given reason'
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -wales- south-w est-wal es-3903 7385
Trump, and his apologists on AB, keep telling us that the proposed ban on people visiting the USA from Muslim some countries, wasn't a ban on Muslims !
No, no....its was just a coincidence of course !
Well, we have have a British citizen, with a British passport and a valid reason to visit the USA and a valid VISA, and he was turned away, while on route.
By the way, his background is Bangladeshi, and Bangladesh was not on Trumps list.
So the only reason left, while he could accompany his pupils on their trip to America. is because he was a Muslim, and we are back to square one again. So, the ban IS on Muslims !
http://
Trump, and his apologists on AB, keep telling us that the proposed ban on people visiting the USA from Muslim some countries, wasn't a ban on Muslims !
No, no....its was just a coincidence of course !
Well, we have have a British citizen, with a British passport and a valid reason to visit the USA and a valid VISA, and he was turned away, while on route.
By the way, his background is Bangladeshi, and Bangladesh was not on Trumps list.
So the only reason left, while he could accompany his pupils on their trip to America. is because he was a Muslim, and we are back to square one again. So, the ban IS on Muslims !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.This British citizen was strip searched and then allowed on to the flight at Reykjavik Airport, bound for New York. But as soon as he was seated, an American women boarded the plane and ordered him off.
He has never travelled to any of the countries that Trump has tried to ban Muslims from travelling from, nor does his family have any connection with them either.
His only "crime" would appear to be that he has a foreign name and that he is a Muslim.
This is a British citizen and despite the fact that he is a Muslim, you would have thought that he would have got a bit more sympathy from some people on here. Imagine the uproar amongst the Usual Suspects, if this man, who has a first class degree, was a white chapel goer called Dai Jones.
He has never travelled to any of the countries that Trump has tried to ban Muslims from travelling from, nor does his family have any connection with them either.
His only "crime" would appear to be that he has a foreign name and that he is a Muslim.
This is a British citizen and despite the fact that he is a Muslim, you would have thought that he would have got a bit more sympathy from some people on here. Imagine the uproar amongst the Usual Suspects, if this man, who has a first class degree, was a white chapel goer called Dai Jones.
Mikey, I’d be willing to bet that his wasn’t the only foreign name on the passenger list. Hundreds of Muslims travel to and from the US every day without encountering problems. You have no idea why this one was ordered off the plane. Why are you expecting people to sympathise with him? I'd rather trust the authorities than give someone they're not happy about the benefit of the doubt - but then you wouldn't report suspicious activity aboard an aircraft anyway you said - you'd mind your own business - so that's where we differ. I put safety before virtue signalling.
Given that he has not been told why it is possible it was for reasons other than Trump's attempts to change the legislation.
Meanwhile it bears repeating than because the greatest risks from terrorism seem to be from Muslims these days it doesn't logically follow than banning those thought high risk is identical to banning Muslims, merely that most affected will inevitably be Muslims. If the legislation was thrown out for being a Muslim ban it was either a) thrown out erroneously, or b) badly worded such that a claim that it was religion based was upheld. But I reiterate for clarity that I think it is the wrong way to be going about things anyway.
Meanwhile it bears repeating than because the greatest risks from terrorism seem to be from Muslims these days it doesn't logically follow than banning those thought high risk is identical to banning Muslims, merely that most affected will inevitably be Muslims. If the legislation was thrown out for being a Muslim ban it was either a) thrown out erroneously, or b) badly worded such that a claim that it was religion based was upheld. But I reiterate for clarity that I think it is the wrong way to be going about things anyway.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.