US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

[mheslep]

In some in particular.

If we go civilian death toll: The Iraq war alone had 150,000 - 1 million civilian casualties, depending on the estimate. Compare this to about 3000 deaths from Islamic terror in the US. We can even compare it to the total death toll of terror worldwide: 190,000 in the last 10 years. Most of them national: People from a country attacking people from the same country within that country.

After carefully weighing the ongoing attrocities and future threat of Saddam Hussein before the US invasion against the costs, lives lost, displacements, and follow on chaos due to the invasion, I'm persuaded by arguments against that war. But 3000 vs 1 million is not that argument.

The US suffered zero civilian casualties due to the actions of the Nazis before entering WWII, and yet the US declared war on Hitler in 1941 and 50 to 80 million died. I've not seen the argument made in mainstream historical analysis that WWII carnage could have been avoided had the US only minded it's business.

Similarly, it is not as if it is known that Iraq under a continued Saddam Hussein would have prevented all the harm related to the invasion . Under a continued Saddam a great many Bathists might have been okay; other Iraqis not so much.

...Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered. Allegations of prostitution are used to intimidate opponents of the regime and have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women. There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that

"Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

In 2002, the U.S. Committee for Refugees estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." ...

Who knows how Iraq's future government will evolve. For the last dozen years however, Iraq has been led by a regularly elected parliament and prime minister, with no aspirations for WMD, government financing of terror groups, desire to annex Iran, Kuwait, etc.

 

[nsaspook]

Your confidence that things are going to naturally settle is not something I share at all.

I've seen this county operate under both LBJ and Nixon during the 60's and 70's. We survived. This current 'existential threat' to America nonsense is far too overblown. This nation has survived true existential threats (World War II) that make DJT look like a carnival barker. What I see is sincere believers reacting to their best version of 'a' America being under threat and it makes them angry as they are almost powerless to stop it.

 

[mfb]

The US suffered zero civilian casualties due to the actions of the Nazis before entering WWII, and yet the US declared war on Hitler in 1941 and 50 to 80 million died. I've not seen the argument made in mainstream historical analysis that WWII carnage could have been avoided had the US only minded it's business.

WWII was not started by the US. The US didn't even decide to join it actively, the Japanese forced them to. The second Iraq war was started by the US. And it was not started for humanitarian reasons (where is the invasion of North Korea and various African countries?).

Who knows how Iraq's future government will evolve. For the last dozen years however, Iraq has been led by a regularly elected parliament and prime minister, with no aspirations for WMD, government financing of terror groups, desire to annex Iran, Kuwait, etc.

This does not always work out. See the Taliban, or various dictators and other questionable regimes that got US support in the past.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The US suffered zero civilian casualties due to the actions of the Nazis before entering WWII, and yet the US declared war on Hitler in 1941 and 50 to 80 million died. I've not seen the argument made in mainstream historical analysis that WWII carnage could have been avoided had the US only minded it's business.

You didn't see any such argument because Japan attacked the US without a declaration of war and Germany declared war on the US (first) on Dec 11, 1941.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_(1941)

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I need to post in order to clarify something. When I say "officially Muslim" I mean countries where the state religion is Islam, and non-Muslims are discriminated against. I believe in total separation of religion and state, no matter what the religion may be. The state should not encourage any particular religion, or religion in general.

I basically agree with what @mfb said about crime. The long term solution is a better type of society where everyone benefits. In my own way I am working on this. Many people are. But it seems we have been moving backward from this goal in recent years. Meanwhile people still have a right to protect themselves from criminals.

 

[mheslep]

WWII was not started by the US. The US didn't even decide to join it actively, the Japanese forced them to. The second Iraq war was started by the US.

The US with NATO allies dramatically increased the military conflict in Iraq in 2003, but Saddam started the war by repeatedly and grossly violating the Gulf War cease fire, firing daily on coalition air craft attempting to maintain a free fly zone. That Saddam violated the cease fire is not in dispute. Occupied Western Europe was similarly in relative stalemate in 1941.

And it was not started for humanitarian reasons

About a dozen reasons were given, including

...Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region...
...repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbor...
...that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates ...

 

[mheslep]

You didn't see any such argument because Japan attacked the US without a declaration of war and Germany declared war on the US (first) on Dec ..

And Nazi Germany signed a Treaty of Non Agression with the Soviets in 1939, an illustration of how a piece of paper is not the same thing as an invasion. There are https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307405168/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (fringe, outrageous in my view) that the UK and US should have sat out the war in Europe after the Battle of Britain, that the Nazis did not pose a significant threat to the mainland US, not compared to miltary and civilian losses in the actual war in Western Europe, and that http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-01-11/news/1993011045_1_remember-hitler-british-empire-churchill should have made a deal with Hitler.

 

[Buckleymanor]

And Nazi Germany signed a Treaty of Non Agression with the Soviets in 1939, an illustration of how a piece of paper is not the same thing as an invasion.

As Neville Chamberlain found out when he came back from Germany waving a piece of paper declaring piece for our time.
Only to declare war along with France when Germany invaded Poland.
I doubt it was possible to sit out the war after these and other events, so as fringe outages they will remain.

 

[haruspex]

reign in on the worst excesses

HM the Queen reigns in England, but reins in her horse.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Well try this source.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
This part explains the reasons for the research.
Quote: Mengele's twin research was in part intended to prove the supremacy of heredity over environment and thus bolster the Nazi premise of the superiority of the Aryan race.[

Just want to wrap this up, since the thread is going to be banned. Buckleymanor, you're using the same tactic as your previous link, guilt by association and appeal to emotion. Just because someone uses X in a bad way does not necessarily make X a bad thing. There are criticisms of the twin studies as outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study#Criticism, but Mengele's twin research is not mentioned. Anyway, since I was the one who started this I was going to suggest to the mentors that our posts on this subject be deleted because they are off topic, but since the thread is going to be banned I'll just leave it. Thanks for the replies.

 

[OCR]

Lol...

... waving a piece of paper declaring piece for our time.

HM the Queen reigns in England, but reins in her horse.

...but since the thread is going to be banned I'll just leave it.

OK, now you can lock it...

 

[Evo]

We're getting off topic and into unsubstantiated opinions, no sources provided. Posts have been deleted. Please read the Current Events rules before posting.

Thank you.

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

 

[Evo]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

And the ACTUAL countries that have produced terrorists, including the US that have attacked in the US? (as have already been mentioned in this thread) What is he doing about those?

The San Bernardino killers, the husband. was born and raised in the US, his wife was from Pakistan, later moved to Saudi Arabia. Hmmmmm, I see not on the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

Boston Marathon bombers. They were from Kyrgyzstan. Hmmmm, not on the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing#Backgrounds

So, who does Trump think he's protecting us from?

Shall I continue?

 

[rootone]

So, who does Trump think he's protecting us from?

Kebabs.

 

[boomtrain]

So, who does Trump think he's protecting us from?
Shall I continue?

let's look at the banned countries

Syria
Trump is protecting us from the likes of Mohammad Daleel, perpetrator of the Ansbach bombing.

Iran
I can't think of any recent terrorist attacks perpetrated by Iranians, but given that the US state department claims that Iran is the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism, it might be prudent to add them to the list all the same.

Sudan
Sudanese terrorists have been active in joining ISIS in Syria, so this looks like a preventative ban.

Libya
Zero libyans have carried out terrorist attacks on American soil... but that doesn't mean that zero Libyan terrorist attacks have killed Americans (perhaps they just couldn't get to the US in the first place?). It seems that ISIS is fairly heavily involved in the ongoing Libyan civil war.

Somalia
We're being protected from the likes of Abdul Razak Ali Artan with the Somali ban.

Yemen
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/yemen/Yemen_Terrorism/EN/index.htm

Al Qaida and the organizations it inspires are finding safe haven in Yemen’s under-governed areas. The deteriorating security situation offers terror organizations a nearly perfect environment to operate in and mount operations in and out of the country.

Unfortunately, Pakistan, Chechnya (Russia?), Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia and the like haven't been added to the list. This list is a start, though.

 

[mfb]

@boomtrain: You can find individuals killing someone from literally every country. You can probably do that even if you restrict the search to the US. What does that tell us about the 6 selected countries? What makes them more problematic than others if we can make such a list for every single country?
Should the US ban everyone from Brasil because someone from there killed someone at some point? Ban everyone?
What about all the US citizens killing US citizens, by far the largest threat to US citizens?

 

[boomtrain]

You can find individuals killing someone from literally every country. You can probably do that even if you restrict the search to the US. What does that tell us about the 6 selected countries?

I was responding to:

So, who does Trump think he's protecting us from?

Shall I continue?

It seems like there plenty of people from those countries for the president to protect us from. This goes beyond "individuals killing someone". There are sensible reasons for restricting travel from citizens of all seven countries. Even the Obama administration thought so.

What makes them more problematic than others if we can make such a list for every single country?

The threat of terrorism is what makes them more problematic than others. Terrorism might not be a serious problem in North America right now, so some people don't think the security measures are warranted. On the other hand, it's becoming an increasing problem for countries with a more open-minded immigration system like France (enough to noticeably affect the quality of life).

Should the US ban everyone from Brasil because someone from there killed someone at some point? Ban everyone?
What about all the US citizens killing US citizens, by far the largest threat to US citizens?

The US can allow or restrict immigration from wherever. I don't think it currently makes sense to restrict travel from Brazilians. If Brazil was in the midst of an anti-American civil war, and millions of her citizens believed that http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-topline1.pdf [Q.89*] was an acceptable tactic in the war, then I might change my mind.

*Iraq was the only country on the ban list that made it into the Pew poll. If the poll is to be believed, 7% of Iraqis believe that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets is (sometimes or often) justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.

 

[Evo]

It seems like there plenty of people from those countries for the president to protect us from. This goes beyond "individuals killing someone". There are sensible reasons for restricting travel from citizens of all seven countries. Even the Obama administration thought so.

Boomtrain, there is a big difference from the Obama admisitration's

The three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.

and Trump's initial across the board ban of entire countries. Don't try to make a comparison when there isn't one. Even his revised ban is not the same.

 

[boomtrain]

Boomtrain, there is a big difference from the Obama admisitration's and Trump's initial across the board ban of entire countries. Don't try to make a comparison when there isn't one. Even his revised ban is not the same.

I didn't say they were the same.

There are sensible reasons for restricting travel from citizens of all seven countries. Even the Obama administration thought so.

i.e. Though the actions of the Obama and Trump administration are not the same, both administrations perceive citizens from the seven countries in question as risky.

 

[Evo]

I didn't say they were the same.
i.e. Though the actions of the Obama and Trump administration are not the same, both administrations perceive citizens from the seven countries in question as risky.

Obama only perceived that certain citizens based on intelligence gathered needed watching and might not deserve travel Visas. BIG difference from banning entire countries of innocent people.

 

[mfb]

It seems like there plenty of people from those countries for the president to protect us from.

Plenty of people? You found a few individuals. See the Brazilian murderers - which I don't find by name because no one cares about them.

On the other hand, it's becoming an increasing problem for countries with a more open-minded immigration system like France (enough to noticeably affect the quality of life).

Mainly via overhyped media reports. Does the danger of lightning strikes affect the quality of your life? What about the danger of getting tangled in your bedsheets and dying that way? Drowning in a swimming pool?
There are so many obscure causes of death with a much higher death toll than terrorism. Why does no one care about those? You can reduce them without blindly banning people from entering the country.

The US can allow or restrict immigration from wherever.

No one doubts that the US can do that. That doesn't tell us anything about how advisable it is.

I don't think it currently makes sense to restrict travel from Brazilians.

And I don't see an argument why. How many Brazilians killed US citizens? I don't know the number, I am quite sure you don't know it, and I guess Trump doesn't know it either. Maybe they are a larger threat?
Brazil is a random example here - we could replace it by any other country.

 

[russ_watters]

Obama only perceived that certain citizens based on intelligence gathered needed watching and might not deserve travel Visas. BIG difference from banning entire countries of innocent people.

It's a difference in degree. The point being made was that both Obama and Trump agreed that people from those countries were worthy of additional measures to protect us. That fact alone should be remarkable! The fact that they disagree on the degree should be mundane/obvious -- Democrats and Republicans essentially always disagree on the degree of danger/response: that's practically what defines them).

 

[russ_watters]

Mainly via overhyped media reports. Does the danger of lightning strikes affect the quality of your life? What about the danger of getting tangled in your bedsheets and dying that way? Drowning in a swimming pool?
There are so many obscure causes of death with a much higher death toll than terrorism. Why does no one care about those? You can reduce them without blindly banning people from entering the country.

It doesn't have to, and people make irrational choices about risk all the time. I have an aunt and uncle who have driven in cars together daily for 50 years, yet when they were raising kids would take separate planes on vacation in case one crashed. And on a national policy scale, in the US we have a nuclear industry that is stalled largely because people are afraid of it, whereas coal power was expanding until very recently. For that matter, if we wanted to save the most people, we'd pull all funding from breast cancer research and put the money into heart disease research, wouldn't we? People are entitled to their irrational fears and pet causes and are allowed to act on what fears (or whatever else) matter to them*.

That doesn't tell us anything about how advisable it is.And I don't see an argument why. How many Brazilians killed US citizens? I don't know the number, I am quite sure you don't know it, and I guess Trump doesn't know it either. Maybe they are a larger threat?
Brazil is a random example here - we could replace it by any other country.

Perhaps, but as you correctly point out:

No one doubts that the US can do that.

Right. So these are all just non-sequiturs. These arguments don't really matter. I'll put it a little more succinctly, yet completely:

You (and others) will agree, begrudgingly, that the risk at play here is non-zero. Therefore you should also agree that the ban will have a positive impact on our safety, at least in the first order implications. We also likely agree that this policy fits with Trump's campaign promises. And I'm sure we also agree that everyone is entitled to their own pet causes and fears*. So there really isn't anything to argue about here!

*As long as the actions aren't inherently discriminatory against people who are protected by the Constitution.

 

[collinsmark]

You (and others) will agree, begrudgingly, that the risk at play here is non-zero. Therefore you should also agree that the ban will have a positive impact on our safety, at least in the first order implications.

I agree that the risk is non-zero, but the ban only serves to increase the risk of terrorist activities, not decrease the risk.

Firstly, there is no evidence that citizenship of a given country is a reliable indicator of threat, according to the recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-evidence-of-extra-threat-posed-by-travel-ban
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3474730/DHS-intelligence-document-on-President-Donald.pdf

Secondly, the ban has a negative effect on our safety. It can be used as a tool to recruit potential extremists. "Look, the USA hates people like us that have cultural or ethnic heritage from any of these 6 countries -- heritage like we have. I told you they hate us. Come join our group." That sort of thing.

-----

Imagine for a moment that, hypothetically, a detailed poll was taken that concluded 60% of particle physicists enjoy coffee. It would be a logical and statistical error to walk into a typical Starbucks and assume (based on the survey's results) that 60% of the patrons are particle physicists. It doesn't work that way.

This ban (the old or the new version) seems to be making that same error in logic.

Together with the fact that there have been zero terrorist attacks on American soil by immigrants or refugees from any of the 6 countries in question makes even less sense regarding the ban's justification.

Back to hypothetical coffee, "Of all the people who have committed the crime of shoplifting in our department store, zero of them have been coffee drinkers. But my sister told me that her husband, my dirt-bag brother-in-law, stole an iced latte from Starbucks, so I guess that means shoplifters enjoy coffee. Therefore we are going to ban anybody who likes coffee from entering our store."

 

[Buckleymanor]

Iraq was the only country on the ban list that made it into the Pew poll. If the poll is to be believed, 7% of Iraqis believe that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets is (sometimes or often) justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.

If the poll is to believed then it's more than likely that if you took a similar poll in any country the result would be the same as far as defence from it's enemies was the governing factor.
Polls and banning people from different countries are really a distraction what is actually needed is to sort out the root hostilities which have caused the animosity in the first place.

 

[mfb]

The point being made was that both Obama and Trump agreed that people from those countries were worthy of additional measures to protect us. That fact alone should be remarkable!

I'm not sure how remarkable it is. Do we have any evidence that Trump didn't just use the existing list?

People are entitled to their irrational fears and pet causes and are allowed to act on what fears (or whatever else) matter to them*.

People are entitled to have their irrational fears, but that doesn't mean we have to make political decisions based on irrational arguments. In some cases, those arguments are explicitly banned in the constitution because political decisions should not be done based on irrational arguments.

These arguments don't really matter.

The question discussed is not "can the US do that". Obviously yes, although Trump is struggling a bit with finding a legal way. The question is "is it a good idea?"

You (and others) will agree, begrudgingly, that the risk at play here is non-zero. Therefore you should also agree that the ban will have a positive impact on our safety, at least in the first order implications.

Depends on what you consider "first order implication". Is the reduced number of highly qualified immigrants a first order implication?
What about banning all cars and trucks? As first order implication it will have a massively positive impact on safety by reducing traffic accidents to nearly zero. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea.

You (and others) will agree, begrudgingly, that the risk at play here is non-zero. Therefore you should also agree that the ban will have a positive impact on our safety, at least in the first order implications. We also likely agree that this policy fits with Trump's campaign promises. And I'm sure we also agree that everyone is entitled to their own pet causes and fears*. So there really isn't anything to argue about here!

The question "is the ban a good idea" is not answered by any of those points.

 

[mheslep]

...Is the reduced number of highly qualified immigrants a first order implication?...

There is no shortage of highly qualified would be immigrants to the US from other countries (not among the six) eager to make up the difference.

 

[mfb]

There is no shortage of highly qualified would be immigrants to the US from other countries (not among the six) eager to make up the difference.

You always get better people if you have a larger pool to select from. Unless you claim among the best hundreds of thousands of potential immigrants no one is from those countries.

 

[Buckleymanor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39215990
Another legal challenge.

 

[boomtrain]

You always get better people if you have a larger pool to select from. Unless you claim among the best hundreds of thousands of potential immigrants no one is from those countries.

That's a possibility.

 

[mfb]

That's a possibility.

No it is not.
Even if the countries would be on those lists and even if those lists would be a reliable measurement of skills: That is the average.

 

[mheslep]

You always get better people if you have a larger pool to select from...

That only follows absolutely if the vetting/selection and then domestic integration resources are infinite. Meanwhile, the US will continue to admit some 1M permanent resident legal immigrants per year, and some 200M temporary foreign nationals per year.