Trump Signs Travel Ban Restricting People From 19 Countries From Entering the US
President Donald Trump has announced bans and restrictions for visitors from 19 countries and warned that Egypt could be next following the Colorado terror attack. The Mail has more.
Nationals of Afghanistan, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be barred from entering the United States under the new order, which goes into effect on June 9th.
Citizens of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela will be partially restricted from travelling, removing access to all immigrant visas and several non-immigrant travel options.
Trump also issued a warning that Egypt could soon join the no-fly list in the wake of the Colorado terror attack in which an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa allegedly set fire to pro-Israel demonstrators.
“We don’t want ’em,” Trump said bluntly in a video released shortly after the ban was announced.
“Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen.”
Mohamed Soliman, the Egyptian national suspect charged with firebombing pro-Israel demonstrators, was residing in the US illegally with his wife and five children.
The President has directed several of his top national security chiefs to investigate whether Egypt should also be added to the list of restricted nations.
“In light of recent events, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide me an update to the review of the practices and procedures of Egypt,” he wrote in a Wednesday proclamation.
Trump said he hopes their efforts will “confirm the adequacy of its current screening and vetting capabilities”.
Worth reading in full.
In the Telegraph, Jake Wallis Simons says “migrants shouldn’t be treated equally” and the ban “by rights should spark serious soul-searching in Britain”.
“We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,” Trump said. Ouch. If the months of Trump 2.0 have so far shifted the Overton window across the West, allowing even the likes of Sir Keir Starmer to contemplate – at least rhetorically – tackling immigration, then such a travel ban should be welcomed on these shores as well.
Already, the usual suspects are accusing Trump of being ‘racist’. But a glance at the range of countries on the list shows that this is not a question of race, or even religion. Rather, it is a question of homeland security, and that holds a stark lesson for Britain.
A few months back, official data revealed that though foreigners comprise just 15% of the population of our country, they commit 41% of all crime and up to a quarter of sex crimes. In the first nine months of 2024, almost 14% of grooming suspects were Pakistani, five times their share of the population.
Two nationalities – Afghans and Eritreans – were more than 20 times more likely to account for sexual offence convictions than British citizens, according to the data. Overall, foreign nationals were 71% more likely than Britons to be responsible for sex crime convictions.
Based on convictions per 10,000 of the population, Afghans with 77 convictions topped the table with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times that of Britons. They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population.
In March 2025, data from the Ministry of Justice revealed that foreigners, who claim £1 billion a month in benefits, were also responsible for large proportions of violence, robbery, fraud and drug offences, between 2021 and 2023. There were no data for terrorism offences or acts of antisemitism. But does anybody want to hazard a guess?
Which brings us to a fundamental question. Why? Why does Britain need to allow the criminals of the world to come to our shores to abuse women and girls, run criminal enterprises, foster terrorism and anti-Semitism, and claim benefits in the process? Obviously not all foreigners from these countries behave in this way. But facts aren’t racist. Large numbers are pulling down our pants, spanking our buttocks and pulling them up again.
Also worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Those in the banned countries just need to get to Europe, cross the continent to the west coast of France and float across the channel. After a shortish wait they’ll soon gain British citizenship and be eligible for a trip across the Atlantic. Simples.
And you are not joking..
Until some State Democrat activist judge blocks it!
Lo and behold!
BREAKING: Biden Judge Blocks Trump From Deporting Family of Egyptian Terrorist Charged with Fire-Bombing Jews in Colorado
It seems as if Federal appeal courts and SCOTUS will be busy over the balance of DJT’s term.
And yet the Biden administration (sorry the Autopen administration) just ignored both whenever it suited them!
Obviously not all foreigners from these countries behave in this way. But facts aren’t racist.
Indeed. And in this case, 99.41% of people from Afghanistan and 99.46% of people from Eritrea were not responsible for any sex crimess on British soil. Phrasing this as “not all of them commit sex crimes” is entirely inapropriate. And it gets worse when this is then generalized to unspecified ‘foreigners’ where the rates of innocent victims of this guilt-by-association smear are even higher.
Oh please. By your warped logic, since 99% of N@zis didn’t work in extermination camps, then they can’t all be tarred with the same brush.
There’s no warped logic here: 9941 of 10,000 Afghanis and 9946 of 10,000 Eritreans in Britain haven’t been convicted of any sex crimes. These are facts from the article. Which means only a miniscule number of peope from either country have committed sex crimes in Britan, namely, less than 0.6%.
These may be facts you don’t particularly like but they remain facts.
I disagree. There is a difference between sharing the same nationality as someone else and supporting the political views of an extremist politician. I worked in France in the 1980s when English football fans had a dreadful reputation for violence. I had a hard time convincing some people that the majority of English people are decent and law-abiding.
By your warped logic, since 99% of N@zis didn’t work in extermination camps, then they can’t all be tarred with the same brush. This really deserves a separate reply: That’s exactly right. Some “N@zis” (however defined) were personally responsible for mass murders. Some others probably advocated and worked in favour of them but weren’t involved with the actual crimes themselves. And lastly, some, very likely the largest group of the three, just tacitly acquiesced and they really can’t all be tarred with the same brush because people aren’t guilty of crimes they didn’t commit, regardless of them belonging to some group or organization dedicated (among other things) to commiting such crimes. There’s a legal difference between someone being a murderer or someone just being complict in organizing murders or someone personally doing something entirely different but not objecting to murders being organized and carried through. None of them can be regarded as innocent, but they’re guilty to different degrees and would thus receive different sentences. Denazification wasn’t composed of blanket execution of all Germans or all NSDAP members and not even of all people belonging to core persecution organizations like Gestapo and SS. Individual levels of guilt were assessed and… Read more »
Statistics are wonderful tools. With a little care, they can be presented to justify just about any opinion or course of action. It’s easy to see why Jake chose to present the number of offenders as a ratio, rather than as a percentage.
A percentage is a ratio standardized to using 100 as denominator. Making the denominator two orders of magnitude larger, from 100 to 10,000, causes the numerator to become two orders of magnitude larger as well while the value of the fraction remains the same: 99.41 of 100 is 9941 of 10,000.
Quite so. A percentage of 0.59% is hardly going to scare people!
Well, it kind of does when compared to 0.2% which seems to be the percentage for British citizens.
This is the same order of magnitude (tenths of a percent) and hence, not really that much of a difference. Assuming the number is correct, 9941 of 10,000 Afghans weren’t convicted for sex crimes and 9980 of 10,000 British citizens weren’t convicted of sex crimes. This means there are about 1.004 times as many innocent Brits as innocent Afghans. That’s not really a relevant difference unless statistics about large numbers of people are being gathered.
Perhaps you could tell us what percentage of men from Afghanistan and men from Eritrea were responsible for sex crimes in their own countries. It would be my guess that it’s quite high.
The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour.
For centuries, women used to be burnt because of accuations of witchcraft all over Western Europe. Hence, this must soon start again.
Past behaviour of certain people is no indicator for future behaviour of other people.
About the only thing which can be realistically gathered from these statistics is that immigration is generally rather undesirable and thus, should be the exception and not the norm. This is especially true for people who already broke the law using downright ridiculous pretexts (“asylum claims” from illegal immigrants formerly living in France) to enter a country.
To put this into a simple sentence:
Practical experiences show that immigration reduces overall population quality.
Because of this, it should rather be avoided.
One of the, probably many, reasons for uncontrolled illegal immigration into the United Kingdom is that it gives a perfect excuse for the implementation of a real ID type system for the citizens of this country to be controlled and monitored by.
They will not check who is entering, perverts and criminals abound. No. They will check everyone walking down the street, buying food, catching a bus. You name it. That sounds logical I think not, unless there are other reasons for tracking the public 24/7
Most of Europe has ID cards so how is that working out to stop stabby/raping immigrants?
That they will say they ate vital doesn’t mean they work for controlling anyone but honest tax payers.
Keir Starmers response
‘All are welcome here, we have an anti British policy which will make the UK the multi cultural hell hole I aspire it to be”
Yup.
When we were members of the EU we were obliged to grant OAP to any EU national present in the UK for [6] months and over retirement age. Many from eastern europe came her, filled in the forms for payment to a UK bank account and returned home from where they could operate manage the funds.
I would like to think this stopped when we left te EU, including cessation of OAP pensions in payment. Having seen the irresponsible behaviour of the elites and bureaucracy over paying the EU to leave and paying Mauritus to take our land, I suspect we are still funding these undeserving recipients.
I wonder how to find out.
When we were members of the EU we were obliged to grant OAP to any EU national present in the UK for [6] months and over retirement age.
This is not true. As EU citizen, you’ll have to work and pay national insurance and income tax for ten years before being entitled to any kind of UK state pension. In this respect, I neatly f***ed myself by moving to the UK because this means I’ll never ever get a decent German or UK state pension because I didn’t pay enough into the German system before I left and cannot pay enough into the UK system because of these ten lost years.
In other news, Starmer (i) refuses to consider withdrawing from the ECHR (despite Blair never having incorporating Article 13 into UK law) (ii) devolves the UK Pandemic Preparedness Strategy to the UN/WHO/Pharma complex. Why do successive governments of the two major UK parties perpetually embrace policies that have become so unpopular with most of the populace, save for vociferous minorities and academics? Part, but only part of the answer, is perhaps that the NHS, the ECHR (and the UN) and academe/experts have over the decades become “sacred cows” that no party dares appear to be threatening? Has the Overton Window become so narrow that one cannot even discuss the cost/benefit of these institutions without attracting the cyberpolice?
Bit surprised to not see Syria and Pakistan featuring on the list. Speaking of Afghanistan in particular, this from France; ”A confidential report by a senior French immigration official has warned that Afghan migration to France is posing deep and growing challenges to the country’s ability to integrate newcomers, raising serious concerns over cultural incompatibility, education deficits, and a disturbing overrepresentation in criminal activity. The note, written by Didier Leschi, head of the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII), was published exclusively by Le Point, and exposes the social cost of mass immigration from the Middle Eastern country over the past decade. Afghans now make up one of the 10 largest foreign nationalities with residence permits in France. More than 100,000 Afghans live in the country today, with their arrival dating back to the first waves in 2015, well before the Taliban returned to power in Kabul. “The subject is not so much the number of Afghans welcomed as the speed with which people who are very far from us culturally and linguistically have arrived, and which reveals the limits of our reception model,” Leschi wrote. One of the most concerning findings in the report is the extreme gender imbalance.… Read more »
In the UK, the anti-British Establishment is deliberately shipping in thousands of potential criminals and terrorists from these and similar countries every year and then making existing taxpayers provide them with “free everything”.
It’s almost like they want to destroy the UK.
(Which I believe IS the aim).