Skip to content

The Muslim Ban

I think it is important to show what the Muslim ban means to real people. In that vein, meet Mo Farah, who is a British athlete living in the US.

Farah was born in Somalia — one of the seven countries listed in Trump’s ban — but at the age of eight was welcomed into the UK as a refugee. Farah followed his dreams and went on to win three gold medals in Track and Field at the Olympics — the most ever won by Britain in that sport. On January 1 of this year, he was knighted by the Queen, even though six years ago he became a Nike athlete and started living in Oregon in the city that is Nike’s headquarters.

When Donald Trump announced his ban on people from Somalia entering the US, Farah was in Ethiopia. As a top athlete, Farah often travels all over the world for events or just to train with people. Realizing that he may not be able to come home, Farah wrote on this Facebook page:

On 27th January, President Donald Trump seems to have made me an alien. I am a British citizen who has lived in America for the past six years – working hard, contributing to society, paying my taxes and bringing up our four children in the place they now call home.

Now, me and many others like me are being told that we may not be welcome. It’s deeply troubling that I will have to tell my children that Daddy might not be able to come home – to explain why the President has introduced a policy that comes from a place of ignorance and prejudice.

When did we forget that America is a country of immigrants? You just have to look at a piece of money to see the slogan “e pluribus unum”. It is what made us great. We forget at our own risk.



  1. Jonah wrote:

    Even Isreal does not have an immigration policiy that persecutes based on religion as far as I know. However this should not be a surprise to voters. Trump promised this would happend and some voted for him despite this for various reasons.

    However the majority of the US people voted against him so the democrats have every justification to stand against him and his nominations. As far as I’m concerned, Democrats should rebel against very stupid nomination, such as Devos , or executive order, and go along with Trump on matters related to the economony. Republicans behaved far worse with a president, Obama, elected by the majority of the people and whose executive orders were in no shape or form as prejudiced as Trumps are.

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 3:57 am | Permalink
  2. Jonah wrote:

    Anyone who thinks the democrats shouldn’t oppose Trump at pretty much every turn should read his twitter feed

    I finally realized why the presidency has checks and balances. The founders realized at some point voters just might vote a dangerous nitwit into power

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:11 am | Permalink
  3. ebdoug wrote:

    My local Rochester newspaper is doing article after article on the people (mostly Muslim) being brought into New York state while the ban has been overturned. They list all the numbers from each country and numbers per year. Nothing negative, just the feel good stories. Love My blue state.

    President Bannon has to go along with his PINO

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 5:58 am | Permalink
  4. Wildwood wrote:

    There is a hard core part of the country that thinks, no demands, that this is, and must remain, a christian nation. This is what is driving them, and in part they are what are driving Trump. Not because he believes them, but because he can con them more easily into believing that he believes and will take them to the promised land. Most of them have never met an immigrant, legal or otherwise and many may have never actually seen one.

    I saw an interesting bit on Lancaster PA the other day. They are welcoming immigrants and encouraging them to come to Lancaster. They are surrounded by the people in other communities who feel the opposite, but have decided to do the right thing for themselves and the immigrants. They have one of the highest rates per capita of immigrants in the country. The mayor said they have plenty of jobs available for them and are helping them settle in and find those jobs. I think the figure was one immigrant to about 320 residents at this point.

    The problem is in the isolation of the haters. If they met the people they contend they hate, I think in most cases their feelings would change. Perhaps we should hire some of the immigrants and put them on buses to visit small communities for a day or two and mingle and stay with the locals. It might go a long way to changing some attitudes.

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 10:12 am | Permalink
  5. David Freeman wrote:

    When I read Wildwood’s last paragraph, especially, “if they met the people they hate … their feelings would change” I thought something’s in the air because my son posted the following today:
    “Remembering fondly the time in high school I fasted for the Muslim holiday of Ramadan with some friends who are Muslim American. I remember one day in particular I was feeling woozy and they assured me that if you’re ever not feeling well you’re supposed to stop fasting until you are better. I thought that was very reasonable but I didn’t feel like I was sick or anything, just famished from not having breakfast. We laughed so hard when they explained that the tradition includes a feast every morning before the sun comes up!”
    If all of us had experiences like this, the world would be a much better place. This is why our schools and society are better the more we are integrated and share our diversity of culture and experience.

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
  6. Mark Agovino wrote:

    I normally agree with most of the things that you write, and I am basically libertarian in my views – live and let live. But somehow I feel that the hype over this order is out of whack. The way I read the order, it is a 90 day suspension of some types of travel, in order to establish stronger vetting standards for refugees. It’s not a “muslim ban” as there are a LOT of Muslim dominated countries not on the list. I wonder how much outrage there would be if the press had simply described it as “a temporary suspension of travel from countries identified by the Obama Administration as probable sources of terrorists”. But that doesn’t play well to the prime time audience.

    There are so many red herrings with this one…Mo Fara is a British Citizen, so he would NOT be affected by this. His statements include “may” and “might”, but don’t say he was denied entry. It’s a false argument.

    But on the other hand, if the government is trying prevent terrorists from entering the country from abroad, should we not be approaching it with logic? Do we have to be so politically correct as to ignore any differences between people? Can we recognize that there is a common element to all the terrorist actions over the past 10 or more years? It’s not people from Columbia or Asians or short bald men or people who prefer vanilla ice cream. It is radicalized Muslims, so what’s wrong with trying to catch them by looking in the right place. In police work, you look for a suspect that matches the description.

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 6:30 pm | Permalink
  7. Wildwoods wrote:

    The hype comes from believing that we currently have a need for better vetting. Applicants are vetted by a number of agencies, I think about 20 perhaps, with a waiting period that’s a minimum of 18 months and in many cases a lot longer. They don’t even need to apply without records of who they are and where they’ve been. We’ve had no major incidents from any of the thousands already here. Our need is for more attention to visa holders.

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 7:02 pm | Permalink
  8. ebdoug wrote:

    If the new list that Trump and Spicer want to tell us about terrorists in Europe ever comes out, there will be as many non Muslims on the list as Muslim. AP already has a fact check on those. Are you saying Dylan Roof is Muslim? During the 8 years that Obama was President how many Muslims were vetted to come here and caused problems? Are you saying Timothy McVeigh was Muslim? To say we will give preference to Christians coming from those seven countries over Muslims is not who we should be. Since the days of slavery 400 years ago, there have been Muslims here. They are part of our Nation.

    Since 9/11 when Bush ignored the warning of the pilots who never learned to land a plane (none from these seven nations) the vetting has been increased. The shoe bomber was the only let in that I know about. You don’t just stop students in midair or families who have already been vetted and leave them to drift. You don’t separate a nursing baby from her mother because the baby might be a terrorist.

    So how do you think these Muslims feel towards us now? The wonderful brilliant student who left her sick dog to go visit her family in Iran and got stuck in Egypt and couldn’t get back? She is back now due to our courts who opposed the ignorant man in office?

    My family were original white settlers in 1613 in Virginia. The Native Americans were terrorists because we came to this country. My family thought they were friends and got along great with the Native Americans, the Accomacks on the Eastern Shore of Virginia.

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
  9. ebdoug wrote:

    And part of the Muslim Religion is that you don’t tell lies. How boring our news would be if there was not all this lying and brainwashing. You know the ten commandments. “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” One of the travelers blamed his mother’s death on the ban. His Iman back here in the US said “His mother died on vacation before the ban. We aren’t allowed to tell lies in our Religion.

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
  10. Iron Knee wrote:

    Mark Agovino, you say “Can we recognize that there is a common element to all the terrorist actions over the past 10 or more years?” However, according to the FBI, 90% of terrorist acts in the US were committed by non-Muslims. Indeed, less than 1% of the terrorist attacks in Europe were committed by Muslims. So your statement is false. Far more terrorist acts in the US have been committed by radicalized Christians.

    Trump’s original ban excluded anyone with a passport from one of those 7 countries, even if they held a passport from another country (like the UK). So Farah’s post on Facebook was valid. I believe that now Britain has received an exemption from Trump’s original order.

    It doesn’t matter if some majority Muslim countries were not included in the ban The ban was aimed squarely at Muslims (besides, the Muslim countries not affected were mainly those where Trump owns properties). Is there any evidence that this ban is needed? According to PolitiFact, “no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the seven countries.” So what is the purpose of the ban?

    In addition, Muslim terrorist organizations are already using the ban as a recruitment tool. So it is likely that this ban will make us less safe.

    You ask that we approach this with logic. Logic doesn’t support Trump’s EO.

    Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
  11. Jonah wrote:

    I think part of the problem, as pointed out in the previous post, is the sole focus on attacks committed by muslims. Why was there no outrage about the attack on the mosque in Canada?

    Even after the recent knife attack in Paris Trump decided to be outraged at that but not at the canadian one. Shouldn’t both deserve outrage?

    Even now if there is an incident there is immediate suspense until its known whether it was caused by a muslim. If it wasn’t, even if people die, interest is then lost. This attitude, led by our president, will undoubtedly lead to something bad. Ant-semitism is on the rise so its not just the muslims who are being targetted.

    Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:17 am | Permalink
  12. ebdoug wrote:

    Jonah: I would have included the Canadian terrorist, except I was too lazy to copy/paste his name.

    Ironyknee: Did you just paraphrase what I just indignantly wrote? I’m flattered.

    Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:38 am | Permalink
  13. Iron Knee wrote:

    Eva, yes.

    Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:46 am | Permalink
  14. Wildwood wrote:

    I saw a statistic the other day that said you are far more likely to be crushed by a vending machine than being killed by a terrorist in this country. So the next time you are at a vending machine, be very very careful.

    Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 10:12 am | Permalink
  15. notycoon22 wrote:

    I am always very careful around vending machines and choose only ones I know I won’t get my hand stuck inside when I’m trying to borrow a candy bar. “>D

    Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:20 am | Permalink