In 2016 the USA bombed Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. The Sudan is not a threat to the USA. It is not harboring Daesh. The charismatic phenomena that is or was affiliated with Daesh is not exclusively a Sudanese issue. Sudan is not an issue.
By Mohammad Amin
Eight Sudanese children (click here) on Tuesday were reunited with their extended families in Sudan after their parents -- who had joined the Daesh terrorist group in Libya -- had been killed or arrested.
The returnees include four boys and four girls, four of whom hail from a single family, whose ages range between ten months and nine years.
“Yesterday, the NISS [the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Services] called me, telling me I should come pick my four grandchildren up at the airport,” he said.
“I’m so happy to see my grandchildren after losing my daughters,” he added.
Within the past three years, a large number of Sudanese university students have reportedly traveled to neighboring Libya -- or Syria -- to join Daesh....
Daesh had entered the Sudan in 2015 and pressured young men and women into service, but, they did not set up base camp there. There are no branches within Sudan that I am aware of. The Sudanese people have on sympathy for Daesh, mourn those lost and pressed into service in LIBYA. The Sudanese people are scared for the region and this manifestation of hate that arose out of basically nowhere. But, they are not organizing militias to fight with Daesh. I think President Trump does not have an argument to support the ban on the Sudan.
I don't know what methods he is using to determine the travel ban either. If the USA is bombing countries (I am not saying it is right to do so.) there is an argument to ban travel from those countries to the USA. But, to simply decide for unknown reasons to place a ban on the countries like the Sudan and Iran is simply "W"rong. I think in both those cases it is prejudice and political hatred.
Below a mourning statement from 2015 regarding young Sudanese that succumbed to the charisma of Daesh.
...The Consequences (click here) of the spread of ISIS to Sudan echoed its effects to haunt Khartoum, Britain, Canada, USA, Turkey and Syria causing extreme grief and sadness to parents and relatives of scores of radicalized male and female medical students at a private college in Khartoum joining the (ISIS- Daesh). The students referred to hold passports from Western countries mentioned above along with Sudanese passports. Majority of the students who referred to, their parents are citizens with dual nationalities living in the Western countries as Diaspora. Among the purposes of the parents of those students besides studying medicine in Khartoum was to give them opportunity leering from the established Sudanese culture and customs and traditions. What raises anger and bewilderment is that the government of the National Congress Party (NCP) does not pay any attention to what is going on and continues turning a blind eye to what is happening....
Those are all words of sorrow. As far as the passports, cancel them. It appears from the statements in this paragraph the students with passports can be recognized.
...Deterioration of Religious Discourse in Sudan is the most important cause for the phenomenon of extremism among the Higher Education students joining the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria/Levant (ISIS/ISIL)....
These young people did not join Daesh in Sudan because it does not exist there.
By Juanita Williams
July 3, 2017
The Supreme Court (click here) has ruled on President Trump’s travel ban, but the ruling is far from a final word.
The court agreed to consolidate two cases challenging the ban and hear them in the fall. And it modified the injunctions that had been issued by lower courts. Where lower courts had forbidden the government to enforce the travel ban against anyone, the Supreme Court said the ban could be enforced against foreigners who lack a strong relationship with a person or institution in this country.
One of the criteria for issuing or staying an injunction while a case is still pending is whether the side seeking the order or stay has a good enough chance of winning. But the court, in its unsigned opinion, did not discuss whether the lower courts were wrong to think the people challenging the travel ban had strong cases. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote separately, and Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who joined his opinion, said modifying the orders suggested the government was likely to win.
The court focused on how the orders were crafted, and how the lower courts weighed the harms to both sides. It gave significant weight only to harms to people and institutions in this country, not foreigners overseas....