Philosophy Now Forum

Trump and Travel
Needless to say President Trump is his own worst enemy. Having incited the mass protests that are taking place, ostensibly concerning travel from various countries.
Removing the invitation from the Queen, would be a harsh diplomatic snub. It should be made clear that it is the President that is invited, representing the USA, and not Mr Trump as a person. Indeed, diplomacy should prove to be an excellent way to persuade him into modifying his statements and ideology.
There have been far worse national figures entertained by the Queen.
As to the question of travel.
Every country and government has the right and duty to protect national security. Altruists will wish this to be carried out with the maximum of tolerance. But travel to a country such as Britain is restricted in some degree. Individuals and groups, representing sects and religions or philosophies, may be banned or restricted.
There is a little humbug or misrepresentation regarding UN and European Rights. Everyone has a right to a religion, but only as it also accepts all the other rights and duties listed. Values trump religion at all times and places. Rights as they are at present are not sacrosanct, and can be modified.

Yes, other unpleasant leaders have had state visits, based on the same arguments. They never have the moderating effect that is suggested; on the contrary they tend to make the leaders even more pleased with themselves. It was shameful that people like Ceausescu were given honours at the time and this became even more obvious when they were overthrown, so we should not do it again.

As to the question of travel, the objection is to a blanket ban. People who had been accepted as refugees, and who had valid visas, were detained and deported. Certainly any country can restrict who comes there, but it must be done in a way that respects them as individuals.

I do not understand 'Values trump religion at all times and places. Rights as they are at present are not sacrosanct, and can be modified'. To say 'values trump religion' but also 'rights are not sacrosanct' would amount to saying 'there are no rights at all'. It is surely the other way round; if we really believe that there are universal values, then those values would be sacrosanct.

[quote="Londoner"]Yes, other unpleasant leaders have had state visits, based on the same arguments. They never have the moderating effect that is suggested; on the contrary they tend to make the leaders even more pleased with themselves. It was shameful that people like Ceausescu were given honours at the time and this became even more obvious when they were overthrown, so we should not do it again.

As to the question of travel, the objection is to a blanket ban. People who had been accepted as refugees, and who had valid visas, were detained and deported. Certainly any country can restrict who comes there, but it must be done in a way that respects them as individuals.

- Yes. I completely agree with this. Although this should not be happening at all; it is unconstitutional and wrong.