International Trump comes out in support of taking in Afghan refugees

[Rational Poster]

Did he tho? Cant seem to remember afghanistan being on his list, but i might be wrong.

You got a source for that?

No, I got it wrong. It was Iraq he banned, but part of their justification were from attacks that originated in Afghanistan.

 

[TryggeTryggvar]

No, I got it wrong. It was Iraq he banned, but part of their justification were from attacks that originated in Afghanistan.

Tbf there was never any logic in that list.

Imo he should have just gone for a full ban or no ban at all.

 

[BIKES!]

Yes he was very pro refugee as president don't let mainstream media gaslight you. He welcomed Muslim refugees with open arms, "let them in" they chanted at his rallies.

Trump literally just said let them in and your response is, but derp derp TDS bad, at some rally they chant, he bad, derp derp”

like clockwork

 

[BIKES!]

Now that the the orange one said it, his supporters are suddenly pro refugee?

Only a Sith thinks in absolutes

 

[grimballer]

Trump tried to ban all immigration from Afghanistan. You don't remember correctly.

you mean the "muslim ban" that didn't include afghanistan, but did include north korea and venezuela?

also situation in afghanistan is much different now and theres obvious difference between economic migrant and refugee... i know lefties constantly try to mix up the 2 for political reasons.

 

[Rational Poster]

you mean the "muslim ban" that didn't include afghanistan, but did include north korea and venezuela?

also situation in afghanistan is much different now and theres obvious difference between economic migrant and refugee... i know lefties constantly try to mix up the 2 for political reasons.

No yeah I already walked that back, he did try to ban Iraq, which was at the time going through exactly the same thing that's going on in Afghanistan. And part of the justification for that ban were attacks that originated in Afghanistan carried out by Saudis.

 

[Rational Poster]

Tbf there was never any logic in that list.

Imo he should have just gone for a full ban or no ban at all.

I mean the first two iterations were rejected for showing explicit religious bias.

The entire thing was politically motivated and just an extension of 2016 campaign propaganda.

 

[ShadowRun]

 

[Squarechoke]

I think you need a recent history lesson. Let me remind you that when he was running for office, there was a major terrorist attack every two weeks on the streets of Europe.


Should we have just opened the door wide? Please stop being an idiot. Thanks

If we're being very generous to your point and define "major terrorist attack" as any where at least one victim was killed there were nine in Europe in 2016.

 

[SteveColdStone]

The people are owed asylum. It’s a complicated situation though and I expect that problems will arise.

 

[panamaican]

Then why did he not do so? He made an agreement to leave by May yet set up no framework to get such people out.

Pretty much this.

 

[boxingskills]

That article doesn't list how many people were polled. I generally hate polls like this because they are done on a small amount of people then they use the percentage from the small amount of people and use it like it applies to everyone.

 

[boxingskills]

Hell, biden is on video, camera etc, saying "No, the Taliban can't take over" "That's impossible, days later they are taking selfies in the main office"

 

[grimballer]

No yeah I already walked that back, he did try to ban Iraq, which was at the time going through exactly the same thing that's going on in Afghanistan. And part of the justification for that ban were attacks that originated in Afghanistan carried out by Saudis.

cant really compare the 2.

isis at its peak was controlling 1/3 of iraqi territory. that means 2/3 of the territory was controlled by iraq government. all those fleeing from isis could seek refuge in the rest of the country under government control. on the other hand taliban pretty much took control of the entire country.

also isis and taliban dont have same objectives.

isis was al qeada on steroids and was calling for global jihad against "infidels". they were calling on their supporters to commit terrorist acts all over the world and from 2014 to 2018 they claimed 140 terrorist attacks in 29 different countries (excluding iraq and syria). so its pretty easy to see why ppl at that time would be hesitant with "asylum seekers" from iraq or that region in general and why trump wanted to pause bringing unvetted "asylum seekers" that could potentially be isis agents.

taliban, on the other hand, never called for global jihad or called for their sympathizers to commit terrorist acts abroad. they just want to take back control of afghanistan, so theres almost no possibility of taliban agent sneaking in as "asylum seeker" to commit terrorist acts.

 

[Natural Order]

Come on Donald.....

Might be the biggest grifted position in recent memory. Almost trolling in nature.

 

[grimballer]

If we're being very generous to your point and define "major terrorist attack" as any where at least one victim was killed there were nine in Europe in 2016.

islamic terrorism became a big global problem, but especially in western world since 9/11.

things got even worse when isis took over

 

[BIKES!]

1/10th of the real voters or 1/10 of the reported votes?

 

[blaseblah]

imagine supporting actual asylum seekers instead of central American fake ones.

Imagine not knowing about U.S. regime change operations in Latin America.

 

[Squarechoke]

islamic terrorism became a big global problem, but especially in western world since 9/11.

things got even worse when isis took over

I'm not sure why you're giving me this info since I posted something accurate to correct an inaccurate statement that was posted.

 

[grimballer]

I'm not sure why you're giving me this info since I posted something accurate to correct an inaccurate statement that was posted.

what point did you make exactly?

the reality is at that time a group of terrorists who made al qeada look moderate took control over two countries in middle east and was calling on their sympathizers to wage jihad and commit terrorist attacks all over the world and that's exactly what happened.

ppl weren't used to seeing religious fanatics strap suicide vests and go on a suicide missions targeting civilians in public places. it was a new reality.

so again it was pretty understandable why some were hesitant taking refugees from those regions.