From our sister site The SeaTac Blog:

Several travelers were detained at Sea-Tac Airport on Saturday (Jan. 28) as a result of President Trump’s executive order that bans immigrants and refugees from Muslim countries.

Trump’s executive order includes a 90-day travel ban for people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, KUOW said. The order also suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days.

Read the full story – which includes videos from the scene as well as Tweets – here.

Founder/Publisher/Editor. Three-time National Emmy Award winning Writer (“Bill Nye the Science Guy”), Director, Producer, Journalist and more...

18 replies on “Trump travel ban results in huge protest at Sea-Tac Airport Saturday”

  1. Outrageous, dangerous, poorly implemented (those are not even the countries the terrorists were from). Glad our new Representative Jayapal is on the scene (among others).

    1. Ha – Jayapal to the rescue. I don’t think she can do anything about Trump’s executive order. Funny thing is, I didn’t notice the Jayapal’s of the world making a fuss when Obama made his executive orders. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no? Live by the sword, die by the sword, etc.

      1. I disapprove of Peter’s comments being quashed for “low approval ratings”. I disagree with almost everything Peter says but this blog is a forum for expressing ideas. I am sure the readers can sort out the truth for themselves . Tom

        1. Thank you. This is the first time one of my comments has incurred this dubious distinction of being hidden due to low rating (that I have noticed). I think sometimes its not the substance of what is said, but how it is expressed that gets the low rating. But if a comment is that unpopular, perhaps some self-reflection is in order.

  2. No one protested Obama because he did not act with such ignorance, arrogance and prejudice against innocent people.

  3. How about banning folks from countries that have killed Americans. None of the listed countries have terrorists that have killed Americans in America.

  4. This is tragic Peter, not exactly a subject for snide comments.
    But you are right, not much a congressperson ,however well intentioned, can do.
    On ,the other hand there may be something a federal judge can do,

    1. Doing our due diligence to ensure we have the practices in place to properly vet the refugees and immigrants who enter our country is not “tragic”, but common sense. You would throw caution to the winds? “Tragic” would be if an unvetted immigrant into this country committed a terrorist act against innocent Americans. PC is great, Mr. Taafe, but I draw the line when it comes to our security. This is a temporary ban until we can properly vet the immigrants and refugees. Jayapel is a left-win fringe congresswoman (like McDermott before her). I do not respect her opinions at all.

        1. Eric – the ban is of 7 countries in various stages of chaos and anarchy and/or known state supporters of terrorism (such as Iran). It would seem to be harder to vet people coming from those countries. Also, this is a temporary ban and mentions NOTHING about religion. So attempts to paint this as an attack on religious freedom are a false narrative. Look – I am not totally sold on this as it is being done now. I think there are good arguments for a temporary ban until we can review if we are **properly** vetting the people we let in. However, I am definitely not sold on the hysteria being created by those protesting this as some huge injustice.

      1. Please remember that they were detaining LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS who have already been vetted and whose entire lives are already based here. These are our neighbors, coworkers, and friends who own property and have jobs here. Many have lived here for many years. As someone with LPR status, they have been guaranteed the same rights as US citizens with the exception of being able to vote. They are not terrorist suspects and should not be treated as such when they are just trying to get home (home to AMERICA). I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want safety in this country, and I wish that Trump’s supporters could at least acknowledge that this was poorly implemented. If you want to read more about why this EO violates the rights of these people, please click here:

        1. Caroline – for what its worth: I am not necessarily a Trump supporter, and I also do not necessarily think this has been implemented the best way. Now can you accept that honest and good people can support some kind of temporary ban on immigration from countries for security reasons, to review vetting process, etc. ?

          1. Peter, I honestly don’t think I would have protested a temporary hold on new visas for 120 days (even though I don’t believe it would make our country safer). The issue here is two-fold: 1) The EO applied to current, law-abiding, green-card-carrying permanent US residents who already went through the proper legal channels and “vetting processes” to be here and 2) Trump himself said that they intend to make it easier for Christians from these countries to get into the US, essentially ordering a religious litmus test and giving preferential treatment to Christians. Both of these are unconstitutional. I was also incredibly outraged today when Sean Spicer justified this executive order by citing the terrorist attack against Muslims in Quebec….even though the shooter was a Canadian born white nationalist and there is no way in hell this EO would have prevented this tragedy (and in fact, quite to the contrary, Trump’s rhetoric easily could have been a contributing factor!)

          2. Caroline – I agree that it probably is not a good idea to keep out green card holders. I heard that a man who helped the US army in Iraq was denied entry into US – that is terrible and he is owed an apology. That said, in the midst of this controversy, I think it is a good idea to recall that this ban is temporary. Includes 7 countries that are either known state supporters of terrorism, or are in a state of chaos/anarchy in which there really is no way to properly vet those who come from those countries into the US., for example Libya, Sudan, Yemen, etc. You cannot tell me that we can properly vet people traveling to the US from these countries.

            The president has the right to do this under the constitution. If he does not, then it will be challenged. Past presidents have restricted immigration (including Obama) and some much more so. Trump campaigned on this – he kept his promise.

            I guess what I’m saying is let’s not lose our heads over this. The EO is worthy of criticism, but ultimately is it not the president’s job to protect the American people? I get that some are apoplectic about Trump being elected. But let’s not let anger cloud our ability to reason.

  5. Banning people is not going to help. DT makes it sound like people just waltz in- it takes years to get refugee status here. It is an insult to the hard work that goes into vetting people already. “Extreme vetting”? There is no plan for what that might even look like. If he wants us safe, maybe the Joint Chiefs and Director of National Intelligence should go back on the National Security Council instead of the dilletante he put on. If he wants us safe, maybe he should stop making enemies out of our closest allies.

Comments are closed.