First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply US 2026 soccer world championship, wont be held if travel ban goes through
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17

TheGrandAlliance wrote
Better? 'phf....


Not really. Athletes are only one aspect of the overall logic of a "bid" for one of these kinds of tournaments. You also have to be willing to have their families come in for a short-stay visa (to support their son/daughter/brother/sister/whatever) in some situations. These are big "money bids" - as I'm sure you know. The reason why countries want to host the Olympics or the World Cup is because of the commerce it brings to the country, even if it is for a month or so.

Not only that, you have to acknowledge that there are repercussions by other countries that were part of the "ban". For example, American basketball players were denied re-entry into Iran and were stranded in Dubai (UAE) as a consequence of the week that the "ban" was still being seen as an official, constitutional order.

I think this is more or less a breakdown of communication between those on the political sides on this forum. So let me simplify it:

Yes - the World Cup is in 2026.
Yes - That is nine years from now (regardless or not Trump gets re-elected, his term would be over at this point).
No - Nobody is saying that Trump's temporary immigration/travel ban was going to last 9 years.
No - Just because it's 9 years away doesn't mean that current actions impact the chance of hosting it.
Yes - You have to welcome both athletes and citizens from those countries to support their country/teams.
Yes - There are repercussions of any sort of immigration ban (that impacts Americans negatively)
No - I'm not saying that there weren't be positive things from a temporary ban, if restructured and done so tactfully.
Yes - When you put in a bid for an event like this, you need to be part of their guidelines and requirements at the time that you've put in said bid (like putting in an application but changing your "student" to "BSc of Psychology" - they'll still consider you a student unless you put in another application, past the deadline to do so).

Why is everything so politically driven without looking at the reality? It wouldn't have mattered if Obama, Clinton, or Bush put in a ban like Trump had recently - it would have caused a similar response. Liberalism or conservativism doesn't mean anything when the "American brand" of these things are just "right" and "not so right" (liberals don't really exist in America). Something like this is, more or less, due to processes for these types of events. It has little to do with who the POTUS is.
21873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


TheGrandAlliance wrote
Better? 'phf....


Not really. Athletes are only one aspect of the overall logic of a "bid" for one of these kinds of tournaments. You also have to be willing to have their families come in for a short-stay visa (to support their son/daughter/brother/sister/whatever) in some situations. These are big "money bids" - as I'm sure you know. The reason why countries want to host the Olympics or the World Cup is because of the commerce it brings to the country, even if it is for a month or so.

Not only that, you have to acknowledge that there are repercussions by other countries that were part of the "ban". For example, American basketball players were denied re-entry into Iran and were stranded in Dubai (UAE) as a consequence of the week that the "ban" was still being seen as an official, constitutional order.

I think this is more or less a breakdown of communication between those on the political sides on this forum. So let me simplify it:

Yes - the World Cup is in 2026.
Yes - That is nine years from now (regardless or not Trump gets re-elected, his term would be over at this point).
No - Nobody is saying that Trump's temporary immigration/travel ban was going to last 9 years.
No - Just because it's 9 years away doesn't mean that current actions impact the chance of hosting it.
Yes - You have to welcome both athletes and citizens from those countries to support their country/teams.
Yes - There are repercussions of any sort of immigration ban (that impacts Americans negatively)
No - I'm not saying that there weren't be positive things from a temporary ban, if restructured and done so tactfully.
Yes - When you put in a bid for an event like this, you need to be part of their guidelines and requirements at the time that you've put in said bid (like putting in an application but changing your "student" to "BSc of Psychology" - they'll still consider you a student unless you put in another application, past the deadline to do so).

Why is everything so politically driven without looking at the reality? It wouldn't have mattered if Obama, Clinton, or Bush put in a ban like Trump had recently - it would have caused a similar response. Liberalism or conservativism doesn't mean anything when the "American brand" of these things are just "right" and "not so right" (liberals don't really exist in America). Something like this is, more or less, due to processes for these types of events. It has little to do with who the POTUS is.


actually, if Obama had put in this ban, which fyi the countries were from obamaslist anyhow, no on ewould have blinked, he also banned people from ...Iraq I believe it was back in 2011 or so, ...crickets

so yes it really is politically sparked, because people just hate ttrump
Ejanss 
16967 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/27/17
In fact, the last/first time the US hosted the World Cup in 1994, it was a big deal, but the Opening Ceremonies didn't get much coverage, since it was June 17, and the news started becoming distracted with the police chasing a white Ford Bronco...

Let's try it again, people, and get it right this time? (As noted, we won't have Trump to kick around, one way or the other.)
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17

redokami wrote:
actually, if Obama had put in this ban, which fyi the countries were from obamaslist anyhow, no on ewould have blinked, he also banned people from ...Iraq I believe it was back in 2011 or so, ...crickets

so yes it really is politically sparked, because people just hate ttrump


Actually, the "bans" were remarkably different.

Obama's Policy in 2011:
  • Did not ban visas from Iraq
  • Focused on making sure that applicants had not been convicted of specific criminal offenses or that the US intelligence agencies had information/knowledge that said applicant was a known threat.


Trump's Ban in 2017:
  • Banned all visas from seven countries
  • Had no "honed in" focus ("protect the United States from foreign nationals entering from countries comprised by terrorism") and to "implemented a more rigorous vetting process".


The main difference is the scope. Refugees do not travel on visas, first and foremost. Those who have visas have already gone through the process of being approved by Homeland Security and our Immigration services. Refugees go through a vetting process (which, yes, requires some more focus) and then are granted access either through a special passport or a card that states their refugee status. Obama didn't actually implement a "ban" - it was more so a slowing down of the process to make sure that they were more dutiful in processing "Special Immigrant Visas" and Refugee status. Trump simply did an out-right ban (which was a much broader scope).

Like I've said several times on this forum: Trump could implement such a thing if he was more tactful, was specific in his phrasing (versus vague things like "To protect the US from foreign nationals entering from countries comprised by terrorism"), and left visa holders alone entirely. The moment you start banning those who have legitimate visas from the country that they've worked hard to relocate to, to get jobs and start businesses in ... that's when things get a bit dicey against the Constitution.
19191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/27/17
Soooo you're worried about something theoretical that's complete nonsense in the first place that'll occur way in the future?

Honestly this completely justified ban is entirely reasonable, and anyone disagreeing needs to take a look at for instance Paris and Malmö right now.

Also, who cares about football..? There's a new SAO movie coming out, this year.

(Also an edit i am neither american nor like america very much, the flag in my pic is my brother's and it's the 1776 flag, not the current one)
runec 
38564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/27/17 , edited 2/27/17

NinjaZat wrote:
Honestly this completely justified ban is entirely reasonable, and anyone disagreeing needs to take a look at for instance Paris and Malmö right now.


One more time now:

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis
Posted 2/27/17

bobland wrote:

Title here is super misleading.

First of all, there is no "US 2026 soccer world championship". The only thing that has happened is that the USA would be highly unlikely to win a 2026 World Cup bid if Trump's immigration policy holds until then.


Tilte gore to the max.
25 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/27/17
The World Cup is all about bringing people together, allowing just the athletes to come is not enough they are not the only ones participating the fans are the heart of the sport. It's that simple.
1938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Bolton, England
Offline
Posted 2/28/17 , edited 2/28/17
Why would they cancel the World Cup due to the USA lol

All that is potentially happening is that the USA wont be allowed to host it. No one currently has the hosting rights and USA want it so they're just saying "if the USA want to host it get rid of this ban"
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.