Donald Trump Has Plans to Completely Change The Visa Law for Australians, and It's Not Good

avgbowlofpho on 28/01/2017 - 18:35
Last edited 28/01/2017 - 20:12

So now Trump has been officially named president America has gone to shit. But this awful reign won't just affect America, but literally anyone travelling to America. News has it that Trump will have a new law in order to change how Australians are able to visit America. So this new law will make it twice as difficult as it was before. Trump is making a law where if you want to travel to America you have to fly to either Sydney or Canberra to have a one-to-one interview at the USA embassy to then obtain your visa, absolutely ridiculous.

If you thought Trump's wall was ridiculous, this is even worse!

EDIT
THIS WILL NOT AFFECT ANY PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAVELLING TO THE USA FOR BUSINESS OR LEISURE FOR LESS THAN 90 DAYS. You can still apply for a visa online
Travel

Comments

  • scotty on 28/01/2017 - 18:48
    +13

    OP — please link to relevant news article to provide context. Here's one from News.com.au. Basically it sounds like ESTA might get cancelled so travelers have to apply visa.

    • The Wololo Wombat on 31/01/2017 - 14:29
      +1

      Trump said throughout his whole campaign that he felt the immigration bureaucracy was broken, that he was going to temporarily ban immigration from regions that are known to harbour Muslim terrorist groups until it is fixed, as well as look into immigration as a whole.

      It's one of the main reasons he was elected. Hardly a surprise that it's happening.

      Yes, it sucks for the overwhelming majority of well-meaning immigrants and tourists, esp those mid-flights. My local store was closed for renovations too: I wanted to buy some cheese, but I had to go elsewhere. I'm not sensationalising the story, or makings value judgments on what motivated the owner to make the renovations, chances are, the owner/employees of the store are a lot more informed than I am and have good, reasonable justifications as to why the renovations are necessary.

      • Krizy on 31/01/2017 - 18:39
        +25

        The owner of the local store wasn't really closed, they just didn't like the look of you and wanted an excuse to make you go away.

        If you looked through the window you would have seen other customers are getting their cheese just fine.

      • Rocket6 on 01/02/2017 - 11:15
        +2

        A logical response - well done.

        He was voted in to do exactly what he is doing.

        • edgar28 on 02/02/2017 - 17:51
          +1

          yep…… likely he is politically correct. Ethically ? I'm not sure, I will leave it to the University Professor (expert) to comment

        • expertreader on 03/02/2017 - 06:53

          @edgar28: ethically correct too

        • Rick Sanchez on 03/02/2017 - 12:40

          @expertreader: thanks prof

  • Kangal on 28/01/2017 - 18:52
    +55

    How is this bad news for Australia ??
    It's bad news for the USA, because it will cut down on their tourism industry and siphon money out of their reserve.
    I think he's getting paranoid about Islamaphobia, cutting out ties and building bridges.

    Does his ego know no bounds?!?

    • poboy on 28/01/2017 - 21:10
      +4

      The only thing Trump is paranoid about is losing his popularity. He will do and say anything to maintain it.

      • 2ndeffort on 30/01/2017 - 14:06
        -2

        Actually I would argue that his action points in the polar opposite direction. he is currently making a load of tough calls knowing that each one inflames the SJW crowd to greater heights of madness.

        • MrMcHairyHead on 30/01/2017 - 14:58
          +15

          You don't have to be an SJW to be angry at the racist, hateful policies of Trump.

        • McFly on 30/01/2017 - 15:15
          +3

          @MrMcHairyHead: … but it helps.

        • MrMcHairyHead on 30/01/2017 - 16:52
          +5

          @infinite: Refugee ban, muslim ban, this week's US entry changes.

        • infinite on 30/01/2017 - 17:19
          -4

          @MrMcHairyHead: I said provide a link to an actual policy, not regurgitate some titles from heavily shared Facebook posts.

        • veritas_mendax on 30/01/2017 - 19:10
          +13

          @infinite: he literally just signed the legislation and people mid flight were affected..

        • Bullion78 on 30/01/2017 - 23:58
          -1

          @MrMcHairyHead:
          What policies are hateful? By the way, “hateful” is an overused SJW term.

        • 2ndeffort on 31/01/2017 - 00:20
          +3

          @MrMcHairyHead: Show me where there is a Muslim Ban, the worlds most populist Muslim countries arent even on the list!

        • The Gent on 02/02/2017 - 00:28
          +4

          @2ndeffort: Yeah, the ones he does business with. Funny, that.

          TL;DR: 8 Saudi hotels, 2 Egyptian companies, 2 UAE golf courses.

          While he's not a fan of an entire religion or her people, he still makes time to forget about that and nurture his businesses from within the Oval Office…no one ever said he was lazy…

        • Maverick-au on 07/02/2017 - 18:46
          -1

          @MrMcHairyHead:

          Refugee ban, muslim ban, this week's US entry changes.

          How are these "racist and hateful"policies. Do you even understand what a racist is? You still have yet to post any proof of "racist and hateful" policies.

    • neonlight on 30/01/2017 - 12:24
      +3

      100% agree.its not like it's cheap to go there.we will just not go to USA lol

    • edgar28 on 31/01/2017 - 12:19

      True fact

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2739145/donald-trump-fear-stai…

      He got bathmophobia , couldn't find any article about other phobia he is afraid of

      • jmi on 31/01/2017 - 13:47
        +3

        But he's certainly not afraid of golden showers. :)

  • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2017 - 18:52
    +24

    Great, thats all we need

    On the flip side, lets make getting into our country hell for the US :)

    We can spend our money elsewhere, provided we don't burn bridges with the team who make all our electronics I am sure Australia is safer without trump

    Problem solved

    • syousef on 30/01/2017 - 11:17
      +7

      Not a chance. Julie Bishop and our illustrious PM are falling over themselves to help Trump with his new edict.

      • arcticmonkey on 30/01/2017 - 19:04
        +16

        Malcolm Turdball and the Libs are yet again showing no leadership.

        http://www.theage.com.au/comment/malcolm-turnbull-is-austral…

        • The Gent on 02/02/2017 - 00:45
          +3

          Listen, compared to Trump, that insufficiently polished turd is a saint.

        • edgar28 on 02/02/2017 - 17:59

          @The Gent:

          He is no Turd

          Quoted by Dr Patience : "Years ago, in the ‘60s, Donald Horne wrote The Lucky Country. In the last chapter he said Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck.
          “That’s no longer true. Australia is a lucky country run by third-rate people.”

    • wlz2000 on 31/01/2017 - 08:33
      +4

      I would disagree on revenge actions against US. Who does not enjoy Tourism revenue surplus?

    • Rocket6 on 01/02/2017 - 11:19
      +4

      Yeah, because going against our strongest and most cherished alliance just because of their current President is a really smart way to deal with things. The relationship between our countries stems far further than a few individuals. Lets not panic, folks. Sick of seeing the media beat this up like they have.

      Lets have a bit of common sense. Can we recall the "OH MY, THE ECONOMY WILL PLUMMET" after Trump's annoucement? No. Lets have the initiative not to believe everything we read in the media. And lets also not forget how fruitless the media was in the US election.

      I, for one, like the approach Turnbull is taking in dealing with the US.

      • cwongtech on 01/02/2017 - 13:28

        No. Lets have the initiative not to believe everything we read in the media. And lets also not forget how fruitless the media was in the US election.

        We shouldn't believe everything in the media. Yet redditors who have met Trump said he's nothing like the portrayal of him in the media.
        Except now I'm just plain confused what Trump is doing. Is he playing both roles of good cop bad cop?

        I, for one, like the approach Turnbull is taking in dealing with the US.

        You mean avoiding questions by skewing the topic?
        Yep, a true politician, Turncoat is doing his job right.

        • fsdef01 on 03/02/2017 - 21:18
          +1

          Except now I'm just plain confused what Trump is doing. Is he playing both roles of good cop bad cop?

          Make a bunch of hasty, ill thought out (seemingly) policy changes that incur huge global condemnation/interest but have no real lasting ill effect on anything till people get used to your erratic reactionist, politicaly immature rantings and begin to ignore them. Then…….

  • fraudie on 28/01/2017 - 19:12
    +31

    Actually you can still apply online for 90 day visas - News.com.au

  • rawm on 28/01/2017 - 19:17
    +18

    I'm sure we aren't the only country where wholesale changes will happen. Think of countries in and around the ME and those within the EU.

    This is bound to hurt the USA in the short/medium term more than us. Their service economy will suffer tremendously (not exclusively from our little country but the combined countries affected) and cost the US millions per month. But hey, play devils advocate for a second. This is what Donald wants. He wants an insular USA. He wants less reliance of service economies (that supposedly employ 1000s of illegal immigrants from South American countries). He craves Nationalism and thinks this will in turn reduce foreign nationals committing acts of terror in the USA.

    But despite his efforts I believe this hard line approach to policy is not the answer. It will create genuine problems to the fabric of communities within the USA. It will create angst among marginalised communities. It might even spawn home grown terrorism.

    In summary, the rigmarole forced upon those wanting to visit the USA will cause large reductions in inbound tourism thus revenue loss and affect the USA more negatively than almost all countries it imposes these changes on, Australia being one of them.

    • try2bhelpful on 29/01/2017 - 10:16
      +15

      Completely agree on the home grown terrorism, the best way to breed terrorists is to disenfranchise a section of the population. Why should they play by the rules, if the rulers are discriminating against them. The best part is the Americans are busily arming the terrorists themselves with their lax gun rules. Trump is about to reap what he has sown.

  • shrek4 on 28/01/2017 - 19:21
    +7

    If true I'll re-think travel to the USA for 4 years from now. Surely this idiot wouldn't survive a second term.

    • PVA on 28/01/2017 - 19:26
      +16

      He won't but the changes he does may.

    • ThadtheChad on 30/01/2017 - 11:56

      Not sure why he's getting negged. Trump is a bleeding clown.

    • prinsenhof on 30/01/2017 - 18:58
      +2

      second term? I think he will just sign an executive order saying him, or his son will be the next president.

      He's a dictator at the moment, i thought their system was more robust.

      • buckster on 31/01/2017 - 12:32
        +2

        That would be unconstitutional and against the people's rights - and if there's one thing Americans can't handle, it's anything that harms their rights.

        • itajac on 01/02/2017 - 13:15
          +7

          You mean their guns, right?

  • StewBalls on 28/01/2017 - 19:48
    +15

    Just for the record, I'm not against the wall…China's got one, 'Merica should be allowed to have one too! ;)

    • spackbace on 28/01/2017 - 20:46
      +19

      I'm curious to see how effective it is over the 20yrs it takes to build…

      And you know, it's not like the cartels don't know how to build tunnels or anything

      Oh wait

      • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2017 - 12:17
        +9

        I would go with more of a moat and wall. Maybe get some irrigation scheme going while you're at it

        • StewBalls on 29/01/2017 - 20:20
          +6

          You sir, are leadership material.

        • banana365 on 30/01/2017 - 12:31
          +1

          So just move the Panama Canal north a bit?

        • 2ndeffort on 30/01/2017 - 14:20
          +2

          And some of those French Guards from Monty Python and the Holy Grail at every 5 kms or so along the length

        • infinite on 07/02/2017 - 14:47

          @2ndeffort: "Carry on, it's just a flesh wound"

        • slipperypete on 09/04/2017 - 10:14

          @2ndeffort:

          And each border gate will have a shrubbery

      • Unknown1 on 30/01/2017 - 00:45
        +2

        At least they can't fly over the wall.

      • jonathonsunshine on 30/01/2017 - 19:38
        +8

        This isn't verbatim but I remember when he said… "It's gonna be a beautiful wall! And even if they can find a ladder, there's no way to get down from the other side- maybe a rope…"

      • The Gent on 02/02/2017 - 02:49

        A ladder would do the trick, I daresay.

    • airzone on 28/01/2017 - 21:06

      A bigger one too.

    • atris17 on 28/01/2017 - 22:12
      +1

      China: We build the Great Wall, still we got invaded by the Mongols, how?? …. They went around it

      • StewBalls on 29/01/2017 - 09:45
        +17

        You should blame Matt Damon…

    • apptrack on 30/01/2017 - 11:54
      -7

      Mexico built a wall on the border of Guatemala

    • BuyoTheCat on 30/01/2017 - 13:39
      +6

      Trump aint Emperor Nasi Goreng.
      That wall aint gonna keep the rabbits out

  • Diji1 on 28/01/2017 - 19:52
    +72

    Everyone is talking about a mild inconvenience as though it's a life theatening situation which means you must have learnt this in the news. Consuming news is arguably more of a threat to you than this mild inconvenience.

    • syousef on 30/01/2017 - 11:31
      +6

      Not a mild inconvenience if you're in one of those countries listed by the Orange one though.

      http://www.smh.com.au/sport/sir-mo-farah-fears-he-can-no-lon…

    • gromit on 30/01/2017 - 12:58
      +1

      raising the cost several hundred dollars for hundreds of thousands of people for no apparent benefit to anyone is hardly just a mild inconvenience.

    • veritas_mendax on 30/01/2017 - 19:14

      Free speech, I'm allowed to talk about it however the hell I want. It's fu*ked.

    • Rocket6 on 01/02/2017 - 11:27
      +1

      Thank god - LOGIC. Increasingly more and more hard to come by.

      I expected better on a forum which is supposed to attract a community of intelligent, well-educated people capable of forming their own opinion.

      I am so sick of the media. The US election partly demonstrates that more and more people are, too.

  • kylebb on 28/01/2017 - 20:15
    +48

    This has been constantly misreported. The change is for Visa extensions not new Visas

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/esta-all-the-way

    News.com.au etc finally seem to have corrected their articles

    • jamesblake2908 on 28/01/2017 - 22:20
      +24

      If your chosen news outlet mistakes the Visa Interview Waiver Program with the Visa Waiver Program you may be watching #fakenews

    • Ahbal on 29/01/2017 - 00:21
      +35

      Yep as usual, everyone is overreacting to trump news before doing any real research. They read headlines and panic.

      Quote from article you linked for clarification:

      But a US embassy official has confirmed to BuzzFeed News that this is an incorrect reading of the draft order and confuses two very different waiver programs.
      The 90-day visa for visiting tourists is part of something called the “Visa Waiver Program” (known as “an ESTA”). It allows people to just provide biographical information online before entering the United States, and the application can be completed in minutes.
      According to the embassy official, Trump’s draft order calls for the suspension of the “Visa INTERVIEW Waiver Program”. That program is for people who have existing visas, and want a waiver to avoid sitting another interview. You can read more about that program here.
      So although the executive order is still in draft form, there’s nothing in it to suggest the new administration will require tens of millions of tourists to sit one-on-one interviews. Not yet anyway.

      • WT on 29/01/2017 - 15:49
        +22

        I watched on channel 9 news a report that was totally incorrect. Basically they didnt do any real research and just rehashed incorrect reports. I spent 2 mins and got the low down.

        Seems they are just lazy

        • Ahbal on 29/01/2017 - 16:28
          +20

          Not just lazy, but they get more clicks/attention on a negative misleading trump article (I.e revenue from ads on their site for e,g) than one that simply points out the policy is not as bad as it sounds (as described in prev comment). Not to mention it also fits the narrative the western media is trying to spin. When I watch eastern/Middle East based media (on the satellite, it is in Arabic) many are actually SUPPORTIVE of trump! A key example is Egypt, as Obamas foreign policy negatively impacted them,

        • WT on 01/02/2017 - 11:51

          @Ahbal: Not only that but also trying to get the scoop on other stations. SBS and ABC news seems to retain its integrity. I have noticed in the last 6 months that 7.9 and 10 seems to get some of their "material" from reddit/facebook and other rubbish

      • McFly on 30/01/2017 - 12:50
        +10

        BuzzFeed News

        lol

        • Ahbal on 30/01/2017 - 13:01
          +2

          Yes this I see as the funny part. Buzz feed is known for their click bait and leftist sensationalised "news" yet even they pointed out this trump policy is being misunderstood.

        • kylebb on 30/01/2017 - 14:01
          +1

          @Ahbal:

          I know, shockingly unusual that they seemed to be first to debunk this when you'd usually expect them to be the one propagating it. Credit where credit is due

        • Ahbal on 30/01/2017 - 14:09
          +2

          @kylebb:

          Yes thats very true! I honestly re-read the article to be sure, that is how surprised I was! I was not surprised, however, that my leftist friends on facebook (who share the misleading articles) did not share this particular Buzzfeed one, even though they shared articles spreading misinformation on the same topic.

        • Frugal on 01/02/2017 - 19:22

          Lol @ buzzfeed

      • Rocket6 on 01/02/2017 - 11:33

        Ahbal, Kylebb, jamesblake2908, great posts from each of you.

        Thank christ logic is prevailing here. As soon as I saw OP's post I had a massive eye roll.

        And yes, Buzzfeed traditionally suck and are consequently well known for the awful crap they produce, but credit to them where due.

    • nzthunderboy on 31/01/2017 - 15:17

      here is the prime example of media interpretation.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrE1ZvldiFE

    • Frugal on 01/02/2017 - 19:21
      -1

      It's not the media's fault. Heck, Trump's staff didn't know what was going on. No one did. Even our gov had to get clarification after Turnbull had a good phone convo about the US taking the refugees on Sunday, then after the immigration ban US staff said no they wouldn't on Tuesday, then they after the strictest vetting.

      Forget the media, just wait for Trump's next tweet.

  • Binchicken22 on 28/01/2017 - 22:47
    +46

    Eh, more leftie propaganda. Get your facts straight before going on a lefty rant, not that facts seem to matter much to you lot.

    • BargainQuail on 29/01/2017 - 22:34
      +6

      Not really exclusively a lefty problem, plenty of right wingers disregard facts too.

      • Ahbal on 29/01/2017 - 23:49
        +21

        That may be the case in some areas, or it may be your opinion in what you regard as fact. Regardless, we didn't see the right wing respond to Obama THIS badly. The left is being riled up by misleading articles, like this, which is just leading to further division.

        A great example. On the day of trumps inauguration, a limousine was burned in the anti trump protest. The limo, ironically, was apparently owned by a Muslim, and the driver was Mexican. The left protesters ruined the work of two people they were "protesting" (rioting IMO) to protect. Potentially damaging their families income too. All for what? Reading a misleading headline? Whenever I discuss something with someone who is anti trump, I straight away realise they haven't even read his actual policy!

        Another example. People are angry trump wants to deport illegal immigrants thinking he is racist picking them out. He clearly states in an interview, and in his policy (I don't have a link to the interview, it's saved to my device) that he will deport based on the following: Criminal history/if they are there illegally/drug dealers etc. He did not say "oh I'm deporting Mexicans, they're rapists" like what the media is saying. Further, Obama deported 2-3million immigrants, as well as banning immigration from the same countries trump has (trump 90 days, Obama 6 months) in 2011. Yet again though, media silence on what Obama did, and media selective outrage on trump.

        See what I'm getting at here? Media plays a large role in all of this.

        • dazweeja on 30/01/2017 - 11:48
          +12

          That is a false equivalence. Obama did not in his first week:

          1. Stop giving aid to organisations that provide contraception, abortions and family planning advice. It was already the case that aid money could not be used for abortions which should have been sufficient. This will mean that more women have abortions, more will be unsafe and more women will die.
          2. Reintroduce CIA black sites and condone certain torture techniques. This will mean that any enemy of the US will now have free reign to torture Americans.
          3. Order two oil pipelines to be built even though the were very strong reasons for stopping them in the first place.
          4. Ban people from certain Muslim countries from entering the US, even those with valid green cards and visas. No immigrant from any of the seven countries had committed a terrorist act in the US for 40 years. The countries whose immigrants have committed terrorist acts in the US - Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, etc - are not affected, presumably because the US and Trump himself makes money from them. The effect of this law will be to further disenfranchise Muslims and make IS recruitment easier.

          You can blame media bias but I would argue that the reason that there is widespread negative reporting of Trump's actions is that these decisions are all really, really bad.

        • Ahbal on 30/01/2017 - 12:14
          +5

          @dazweeja:

          False equivalence? Really? So now that a policiian keeps his promises to his voters and starts his work as early as possible, your criticise him? And this is you way of dodging my point about Obama? You didn't even directly counter them, you went straight to anti trump points, that I will counter anyway.

          1.Abortion. This is strongly opinionated. However, what I will say is that America does not have as much "safe sex" education as Australia. Which is why they have such a need for abortions, they don't practice it. If they did, they would not need to abort so many "mistake" babies. Further, women say "my body my choice", well, as a scientist I say the woman is supposed to protect and nurture the child in the womb until birth. Evolution shows through the changes of female skeletal structure that it favours traits that protect both the mother and the baby during child birth. Further, does the baby not have a choice in what happens to his or her body? Or is it because they cannot speak, therefore they have no say? This is not a religious view, more or less a logical one. Yes, I know that women die in childbirth, my mother almost passed away during the birth of my youngest brother. However, that's a risk parents/couples take by choosing to go the route of conception. If it was not consensual, then it can be avoided by contraception taken soon after the incident.

          1. I agree here. I don't see the point of this toture thing with the CIA blacklist.

          2. Another point I agree with. I believe trump wants this for job growth, however I don't believe it is worth the environmental negatives that the pipes will bring on.

          3. No. There are Muslims allowed in from certain nations. Next, in regard to the list. The countries you mentioned have very little terrorist activity within themselves. He stated clearly it's about how unstable those countries are NOW. All those countries listed are unstable. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and UAE are not unstable, so why would he ban them? Sure, some citizens committed terrorist acts, but then that's judging them all for the actions of a minority, isn't that true? Further, you would bash him saying they are stable nations with little terrorist activities. So Before you hate trump for this, thank Obama for making it possible first. Also, they won't commit as many violent acts in the U.S while their population is low. With all respect, you don't understand this. Look at the statistics from Europe. The crimes only went up drastically when certain percentages of Islamic population were hit. Look at Europe, the result of open borders, its insane, seriously. And trump is only banning select countries for 90 days, not 6 months like Obama did. Isn't it better to get this over and done with at the start of his presidency, rather than wait? Why criticise him for that? After these 3 months pass, the vetting procedure should be acceptable, and everything will resume as normal. He is not targeting Muslims, or else every Muslim from every country wouldn't be allowed in, and that's not the case. Therefore, it is not a "muslim" ban.

        • dazweeja on 30/01/2017 - 12:58
          +2

          @Ahbal:

          Yes, of course I will criticise him. None of these - not one - was a specific policy taken to the people before the election. Of course, they do align with his campaign themes but it is the implementation that is the issue. Some of them will have the exact opposite effect of what is intended. That is a bad policy.

          The abortion gag order is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion. As I said, US aid money cannot currently be used for abortions anyway. This is about taking money away from organisations that even provide abortion advice independently of US aid. Of course, these organisations also provide contraceptives because that is the most effective approach to this issue. Now all of these organisations will be defunded. More unwanted pregnancies, more unsafe abortions. The exact opposite of the intent of the policy. So why do it when the current policy was fine? Good question but it's terrible policy and women will die.

          Regarding the ban, there was no suggestion before the election that people currently legally working in the US with valid green cards would be banned from re-entering the US. I'm in the technology field so I'm reading every day about engineers and programmers working at Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc, being affected but of course this is happening in all fields. They've already been through an intensive vetting process to get their green cards. Of course, people shouldn't be judged based on a minority. All of those with green cards should be allowed in. But if you're going to introduce a ban - which I disagree with - do it consistently. Trump claims this is about terrorism. You seem to have set up some equivalence between the stability of a country and the terrorist threat posed by its immigrants when that is not the case. Saudi Arabia has been stable for decades and yet produces the most terrorists. So where is the intelligent, considered rationale behind this decision? It's like the abortion gag order - terrible, ill-considered policy intended to dog-whistle to his base.

          As for your Obama point, I agree. He deported millions of illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. But I don't agree that the media was too critical on Trump for promising to do that - they were critical of his promise to go further and make every illegal immigrant leave the country to apply for citizenship from outside the US. But that was probably just a thought bubble.

          I stand by my original post. These policies are absolutely woeful.

        • Ahbal on 30/01/2017 - 13:18
          +2

          @dazweeja:

          In regard to the ban, you should read the executive order. I had expected you to have read it, seems I am mistaken. In it, he does not directly refer to these countries, he refers to the list Obama created in 2015. So countries included/excluded were not trumps idea, but Obamas. Therefore, Trump did not create this list, he is merely reintroducing the same one Obama used. I referred to this in another comment here somewhere I believe. Saudi Arabia definitely sponsors terrorism, I've been saying for years they need to be dealt with. However , the countries on the current ban list certainly make sense. As there have been numerous cases in europe of terrorists posing as migrants during the open border policy. Saudi Arabia, is of course the exception to stability/terrorism part I discussed. Look at other stable countries there though. Egypt (was unstable, high terrorism, now ok for the most part) Lebanon, Turkey. All stable. Very little terrorism within. Not on the ban list. But again, Obama created this list not Trump. Why would trump change something that wasn't protested against when Obama did it?

          Secondly, what he is carrying out now was brought to the people, in his policy during his campaign. It was on his campaign website for all to see and read. With the exception with the green card issue, I do agree, I do not believe that was in the policy presented. It makes no sense to ban them if they've already been through all necessary procedure. I obviously don't remember every single policy there, so there may be some he is introducing that were indeed not on there (in which case I will agree with your point).

          In regard to abortion, I did admittedly get carried away with the moral argument. However, yes, some funding needs to remain to ensure abortions that go through are safe. However, they also seriously need to educate people more on this matter. I've seen the abortion process, it's horrible. If an abortion is necessary, it must be done as early as possible. Say take some of the funding, put it to education on the matter (like here in Aus) and have the rest for safe abortions. Yes, trumps current policy in this regard does not work out very well as it also impacts contraceptives-which is stupid-.

        • dazweeja on 30/01/2017 - 15:18
          +2

          @Ahbal:

          Thanks for your comment. Let's be perfectly clear though - Obama created a list of "countries of concern" and put some restrictions on the Visa Waiver Program for people that had recently visited those countries. Nothing more than a sensible precaution - instead of waiving some people through they were subjected to a little extra vetting. No-one was automatically banned. No US residents were affected. And it only applied to people that had recently visited those countries, not people that may have left them decades ago. Of course nobody protested. To say that Obama's policy is in any way similar to Trump's is highly misleading. They are not even in the same ballpark.

        • Rocket6 on 01/02/2017 - 11:48
          +2

          @dazweeja:

          He was voted in to do these things. This is how democracy works.

          1) Republicans are well known to be pro-life. Move on.
          2) You think the enemy of the US will only torture the US, because the US are involved in the same practices? Sighhhh.
          3) Fair point.
          4) Times are very different. Referencing anything pre-9/11 is irrelevant. These areas are at current, hotbeds of Islamic extremism and terrorism. This is also a view held by many Americans (as demonstrated by the recent election).

          This was also acknowledged by Obama given the stringent restrictions he placed on these countries. These are not "certain Muslim countries". These are countries where terrorism is rife. Stop playing identity politics. None of the top 5 Muslim countries in the world are included in this list (which again, was drafted by Obama).

          How is anybody surprised? HE WAS VOTED IN TO DO THIS. You don't hear much about the popularity of these policies, do you? The media are losing the plot. I feel sorry for people who are unable to form their own opinions.

        • Rocket6 on 01/02/2017 - 11:49
          +2

          @Ahbal:

          Thank you for taking the time to call people out on their crap. I repeated many of your sentiments below.

    • veritas_mendax on 30/01/2017 - 19:16

      Haha simple brad thinks that ignorance only resides in the 'left' camp. Lol.

    • blackfrancis75 on 01/02/2017 - 16:03
      +2

      Who taught you to believe that some are on the left and others are on the right?
      Who taught you to believe that there are liberals and conservatives?
      Who taught you and why?

  • grog on 28/01/2017 - 23:48
    +9

    That bloke has a kangaroo missing from the top paddock

  • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2017 - 00:29
    +16

    Oh so what. Who cares about going to the US. Us Aussies will live.

    NOW BUILD THAT WALL HIGHER

  • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2017 - 04:33
    +3

    Seditious Aussies are my favourite kind of Aussies.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2017 - 09:40
      +1

      Mine are the macroverbumsciolists.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2017 - 11:07
        +1

        Made me google, can you pronounce it?

  • StuffnStuff on 29/01/2017 - 10:04
    +46

    Not a supporter but whether you like him or hate him, he appears to have done more this week than our government has done for years depending on which media source you believe. The world is a scary place, there have been some big changes over the last few years. They said Brexit would never happen, it did. Trump would never win, He did, Oil will never get below $100/barrel again, it did, Pauline Hanson wont get a seat, she did. The list goes on. Who knows how it will all turn out, maybe it could be change for the better and we just can't see it at the moment.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join