Sections

Missing the point

TimesLedger Newspapers
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:

I would like to respond to your reporter’s article concerning the president’s travel ban.

In this article, the reporter quotes Attorney General Eric Schneiderman as saying that the president’s ban is discriminatory and undermines the state’s residents and businesses. He reports a coalition of 17 attorneys general have filed a brief opposing this ban. I find the statement in this article completely inaccurate as targeting the president as biased against Muslims.

For some years, there have been a series of violent attacks from probably a small minority within certain Muslim countries. The president does not include in this ban the most populist Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Algeria and Egypt. Hence, it is not a Muslim ban.

More to the point, there have been a long series of jihadist attacks not only involving our country, but a number of European countries. A Jewish woman in France was set on fire and stabbed by Muslim jihadists. Let me state that I am fully convinced that most Muslim people are law-abiding citizens, except for a small minority in their societies who engage in these attacks.

I must state I recently had an email from a Christian woman in Pakistan who stated that she had been praying for the election of President Trump. For better or for worse, Christians are in a state of persecution in many countries.

Most recently in Palm Beach, there was a stabbing and homicide by a Muslim jihadist. Personally, I entertain no hate or prejudice to the Muslim community, who God significantly loves, values and cherishes. The president’s ban is a response on the ground of national security to protect American lives.

The article by your reporter ignores these attacks, which have consistently occurred over many years. In the face of this violence brought about by a thin minority in the present world, the president has no choice but to impose this ban on a practical basis.

Attorney General Schneiderman filed a suit in federal court to block the citizenship question for the 2020 Census. The purpose of this question is to determine the number of people illegally here in the United States. The president is concerned with illegal citizens who take jobs away from the most vulnerable persons in our society — including black and Latino residents — for low wages and no benefits.

The president’s actions toward persons here illegally here does not make him anti-immigrant, but anti-illegal-immigrant, and makes him a person who cares about the needy who reside in our country. Both of these lawsuits against President Trump brought about by the state attorney general of New York miss the point of the travel ban and citizenship question.

That point is the president cares about the lives of the American people and cares about the employment that they so desperately need. These poverty-stricken legal residents may be forced to join the army and then die in the battlefields of the Middle East.

Andrew Schatkin

Bayside

Posted 12:00 am, May 6, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:

Reader feedback

Ts from Queens says:
The muslims dont deserve to come here if they don't know how to behave. Why do we want to put a ban on guns? But we don't want to put a ban on people who are the ones who are doing the murdering. Guns don't kill people....people kill people. Now those that are in this country already can't really be stopped from getting their hands on guns because even if you put tighter restrictions on guns, a crazy person could still get their hands on one by stealing it from someone they know. And look the Muslim terrorists never used guns to kill people, they used pressure cookers, cars and planes to murder people. If a person is crazy enough to want to kill, the person would find any resource to do so. So wouldn't it make sense to stop more murders from happening by banning the group of individuals who are most likely to create a terrorist attack against us? Just like gun banning makes no sense because guns are an object but the people who used those guns could be screened better before they buy one, but like I said that might not even help because who's to say that one of his family members couldn't get a hold of it?
So in all reality, a ban on Muslims was highly needed on order to save ourselves. I do think this ban should have reached more muslim countries too.
May 6, 5:16 am
missed point from Queens says:
The travel ban against those who harbor violent terrorists is not the President's ban. It is OUR ban, put in placed by OUR elected President.
May 7, 1:11 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not TimesLedger.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to TimesLedger.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

Classifieds

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter:

Optional: