US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

[russ_watters]

...The solution to stop recruiting is not to "bomb them to the stone age", it is analysing the motives and supplying an alternative.

Well, the "solution" being discussed here isn't bombing it is preventing them from entering the US. But in either case: their motive is that people who aren't members of their particular strain of Islam need to convert or die. What alternatives would you propose to alleivate that?

When a hatred is so irrational and complete that *anything* we do to protect ourselves can be construed as hateful and fodder, I don't accept that we have to choose to let our guard down to make them happy. Of course it would work; 9/11 made them very happy. But it didn't make *me* happy and I'm not sure successful attacks reduce their motivation for more successful attacks.

Is anyone surprised over this? It was quite clear to me long before the election that Trump does not understand the point of having an unbiased president or that he is not allowed to take decisions intended to benefit his own bussiness empire.

There is the fact and then there is the implied motive, which is not a fact: it is speculation. As noted previously, Trump did not generate this list, Obama did. Assuming the list of countries that Trump has business interests in is accurate, do you think there might be other logical reasons why Obama would create a list of problematic countries that excludes countries where Trump has business interests?

 

[votingmachine]

I never liked this line of arguing. I can't imagine a normal non-radical person getting frustrated that his visa is suspended so he decides to blow himself up with a dozen innocent people. It's unrealistic, and frankly insulting to most people who live in Muslim countries (It's basically saying don't pi** these people off because they'll turn terrorists as result).

Normal non-radical persons are not really the target of propaganda. The point of propaganda is not to reverse the minds of opposition.

On the other hand, if you see the West as oppressive pigs, who continuously interfere, and who are attacking Muslims routinely, then the propaganda will resonate. You will agree that the US banning Muslims is a confirmation of the previously unstated bias in the US "war on terror".

And let's say you are a Muslim more pre-disposed to the West. You probably see the travel restrictions as evidence that the US cannot be relied on. Which means you have to consider whether to accommodate living with extremists that want a Caliphate. What exactly is a prospective refugee to do? Fight to the death? Hardly likely. I would keep my head down and clap when the radicals cut off a Western head or two. Most people would. I would rather get my children away from that, but if forced to, I would teach them how to keep their heads down, and attached.

 

[Orodruin]

But in either case: their motive is that people who aren't members of their particular strain of Islam need to convert or die. What alternatives would you propose to alleivate that?

Education and inclusion. Radicalisation occurs when people feel left out and not part of anything. As you said yourself, it is not that people wake up one morning and suddenly think "I think I will join a radical extremist faction today". However, to a large extent what these groups offer is an alternative to a social system in chaos (which it is in Syria and was in Iraq in the aftermath of the disposal of Saddam Hussein) and a feeling of belonging to and being welcome in a group. Again, Trump won the election partly based on similar rhetoric (by appealing to people feeling let down by the system). The best way to combat extremism is not by calling names or excluding people from the same region as the extremists, it is by offering alternatives to people in risk of being caught in the web of the extremists.

 

[russ_watters]

Education and inclusion. Radicalisation occurs when people feel left out and not part of anything.

Short of overthrowing their governments and installing our own friendly, democratic governments and school curriculum (which we have done in some countries...), how do *we* provide them with education and inclusion? In other words, if someone grows up in the southern USA, to bigoted parents who drill racist ideology into them from the day they are born, we can fight that, to some extent, with education and diversity in school. How do we do that in Yemen?

If I'm sounding hopeless, that's my point. As far as I can tell, we can't leave them alone (they begged us to defend them against Hussein - if we hadn't, they would have been mad), we can't help them (9/11 was, in large part, repayment for helping defend them againt Hussein), and we're not going to convert to Islam, so to me it seems like the best we can do is try hard to keep them out/catch them.

 

[Orodruin]

Short of overthrowing their governments and installing our own friendly, democratic governments and school curriculum (which we have done in some countries...), how do *we* provide them with education and inclusion? In other words, if someone grows up in the southern USA, to bigoted parents who drill racist ideology into them from the day they are born, we can fight that, to some extent, with education and diversity in school. How do we do that in Yemen?

If I'm sounding hopeless, that's my point. As far as I can tell, we can't leave them alone (they begged us to defend them against Hussein - if we hadn't, they would have been mad), we can't help them (9/11 was, in large part, repayment for helping defend them againt Hussein), and we're not going to convert to Islam, so to me it seems like the best we can do is try hard to keep them out/catch them.

I am sorry if you see it as hopeless. It certainly is a daunting task that will take a long time - there is no quick fix (which is usually what politicians want because they are up for reelection). The key is to provide humanitarian aid (including medicine, education, and food) and to not impose something. It may be very tempting to say "you have to do it like this" but the people in these countries need to figure out their own paths to a working society.

After all, western societies were not very different from this.

Also, do you really think a travel ban or a wall will keep the people that really want to get in out? I am sorry, but that sounds very naive to me. It is just going to make it slightly more inconvenient for them. The people that are mainly going to suffer from this are not the ones that you want to target.

 

[ZapperZ]

The Washington Post has an article that showed that this current ban would not have stopped the attacks in the US by the so-called Islamic radicals since 2001.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-citing-attacks-it-couldnt-have-prevented/

Zz.

 

[mfb]

Short of overthrowing their governments and installing our own friendly, democratic governments and school curriculum (which we have done in some countries...)

And it never worked well... yet the US keeps trying it.

How do we do that in Yemen?

How would you feel about Yemen trying to improve education in the US? Would you be happy with that?
The US is a country, Yemen is a different country.
Offering help is fine. Forcing help (or "help", as it usually ends) leads to trouble.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I want to quickly thank everyone involved in this interesting discussion for keeping a level head and debating in good faith. With that in tact we are able to continue these discussions and learn from each other.

 

[Orodruin]

How would you feel about Yemen trying to improve education in the US? Would you be happy with that?
The US is a country, Yemen is a different country.

This is a main point I believe. If Yemen came and offered to help by teaching Islam to the Bible belt, it would surely not be very popular - even less so if forced. Help can only be offered, not imposed. You offer to help with certain things and you might even put conditions for giving the help and the receiver can then decide whether or not it wants the help at whatever price is put on it (e.g., strengthening democratic institutions). But you should work together with the receiver to reach an agreement you can both accept.

(Of course, this is fairy-tale land. It will be complicated by political situations etc that will botch the implementation - but I believe this is the way you have to try to do it.)

I want to quickly thank everyone involved in this interesting discussion for keeping a level head and debating in good faith. With that in tact we are able to continue these discussions and learn from each other.

Good faith ... ehhrrrm ... yes ... good faith. <<quickly hiding the fresh batch of Molotov cocktails and the flamethrower>>

 

[ZapperZ]

Good faith ... ehhrrrm ... yes ... good faith. <<quickly hiding the fresh batch of Molotov cocktails and the flamethrower>>

I bet you Mentors have a secret bet going on behind our backs on when this thread will go south!

Zz.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Short of overthrowing their governments and installing our own friendly, democratic governments and school curriculum (which we have done in some countries...), how do *we* provide them with education and inclusion? In other words, if someone grows up in the southern USA, to bigoted parents who drill racist ideology into them from the day they are born, we can fight that, to some extent, with education and diversity in school. How do we do that in Yemen?

If I'm sounding hopeless, that's my point. As far as I can tell, we can't leave them alone (they begged us to defend them against Hussein - if we hadn't, they would have been mad), we can't help them (9/11 was, in large part, repayment for helping defend them againt Hussein), and we're not going to convert to Islam, so to me it seems like the best we can do is try hard to keep them out/catch them.

The fundamental fallacy in your argument above is that the main battleground is between Western nations and Islam (or an extreme version of it). However, as many others, including writer Salman Rushdie and former jihadist-turned anti-extremist activist Maajid Nawaz has stated, the true challenge is between a moderate, progressive form of Islam accepting of modernity and a regressive, extremist version who view all non-Muslims as heathens worthy of either conversion or death, and all other Muslims who disagree with them as apostates deserving of the same fate.

It is up to the reformers and moderates within the Muslims communities around the world to counter the rhetoric coming from the jihadists like ISIS and al-Qaeda (among others) by providing a counter-narrative. Groups like the Quilliam Foundation (founded by the aforementioned Maajid Nawaz) is just such a group.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank)

Western countries like the US are secondary players in this struggle, but can do a lot by setting policies and provide support that strengthen groups like Quilliam succeed. In other words, the US needs the Muslim community both within the US and around the world to fight against radical Islamism.

My contention and concern is that the executive order from Trump (along with the anti-Muslim rhetoric from Trump and his supporters during the election campaign, and afterwards), in addition to stigmatizing an entire group of people, has made the work of groups like Quilliam far more difficult, and has the potential of undoing much of the progress of reformers and activists on this front, by playing into the hands of the propaganda issued by the jihadist groups.

 

[TurtleMeister]

So you think we've just been lucky? Obviously our vetting was working since we haven't seen anything remotely close to 9/11. So why run this ban on a few Muslim countries now? It's pretty obvious logic is not involved.

I know Russ has already responded to this, and I agree with his post, but I would just like to respond to your statement "So why run this ban on a few Muslim countries now? It's pretty obvious logic is not involved". Remember that this action is one of the promises that Trump made during his campaign. I think we've become so use to politicians never following through on their promises that we never expected someone to actually do it.

 

[gjonesy]

People are outraged over nothing, ITS NOT A MUSLIM BAN. it's a temporary restriction on travel from terrorist states. Obama did the same in 2011. It's not unconstitutional, nor is is racist. 7 countries were in the executive order. But the majority of Muslim nations aren't effected.

Several presidents have done this exact same thing in one form or another. Why is it so outrageous because Trump is holding the pen? Where was the outrage when Obama did it?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

People are outraged over nothing, ITS NOT A MUSLIM BAN.

See post #24. Part of the outrage was how it was executed.

 

[Astronuc]

People are outraged over nothing, ITS NOT A MUSLIM BAN. it's a temporary restriction on travel from terrorist states. Obama did the same in 2011. It's not unconstitutional, nor is is racist. 7 countries were in the executive order. But the majority of Muslim nations aren't effected.

Obama did not do 'the same in 2011'.

Politico analyzed Trump's pre-emptive ban with Obama's action in 2011. Obama reacted to the arrest of two individuals who were planning to send money, explosives and weapons to al-Qaida. One individual's fingerprints were matched by the FBI to an unexploded IED in Iraq from 2005.

Obama’s 2011 order put a pause on refugee processing, whereas Trump’s halt in entries applies to all non-U.S. visitors.

Ref: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

There are other precedents for temporary halts in immigration. A 2016 Congressional Research Service report notes that refugee admissions were also briefly suspended after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack to review the security procedures, leading to an overhaul of the system. A special subset of refugee admissions for reuniting families was suspended in 2008 in certain locations in Africa after higher rates of fraud.

So like Obama’s 2011 suspension, both the post-9/11 and African cases were in reaction to immediate issues and limited to refugees.

Trump’s order is broader, and his administration has provided no evidence it is in response to any particular event.

Why Trump's Muslim ban isn't like Jimmy Carter's actions on Iranians
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...umps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/

• Carter acted against Iranian nationals, not an entire religion.

"The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States," said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "The class of ‘all Muslims’ has no similar connection to ISIS or terrorists. That makes the analogy seriously flawed."

Carter was responding after the Iranian students, with support of the government, took hostages of US Embassy staff, in violation of international law.

• Carter was ratcheting up diplomatic pressure in a fairly traditional process of crisis management.

Experts said that Carter’s actions are best understood in the context of a traditional conflict with a nation-state, something that doesn’t exist in the environment now shaping Trump’s proposal.

"Carter acted after the Iranian government accepted and defended the action by militants who stormed our embassy in Tehran and took our diplomats hostage," said David Martin, a University of Virginia law professor who has written extensively about immigration law. "It was a classic, major, state-to-state confrontation, based on a flagrant violation of diplomatic immunity. Carter invoked a host of counter-measures long recognized as appropriate under international law."

AP FACT CHECK: Trump claims on travel ban misleading, wrong
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...ravel-ban-misleading-085016321--politics.html

TRUMP: The president also tweeted: "If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the 'bad' would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad 'dudes' out there!"

THE FACTS: The immigration system doesn't allow the kind of "rush" Trump is describing. There are 38 countries, mostly European, whose citizens can visit the U.S. without a visa. But they must be approved for travel in advance by supplying background information to the U.S. government. Any other foreigner looking to visit or move to America for school or work has to get in line for a visa and be subjected to a variety of background checks, including reviews by federal law enforcement and intelligence. Before Trump's executive order was signed, some people were eligible to skip an in-person interview if they met a variety of requirements.

And the U.S. can always stop a foreigner from boarding a U.S.-bound flight or cancel a visa upon someone's arrival. A visa is not a guarantee that a foreigner will be allowed into the U.S.

 

[Evo]

In the state on NC..Barack Obama and his administration did the same thing and did it too the same countries.

FALSE!

President Donald Trump defended his sweeping immigration policy by calling it “similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” That’s a faulty comparison.

There was a delay in processing Iraqi refugees in 2011 after it was discovered that two Iraqi refugees living in Kentucky had been involved in roadside bombing attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. One of the refugee’s fingerprints were found on a detonation device in Iraq, prompting U.S. immigration, security and intelligence agencies to use federal databases to rescreen about 58,000 Iraqi refugees in the U.S. and more than 25,000 Iraqis who had been approved to enter the U.S., but had not yet been admitted, Department of Homeland Security officials testified at the time.

The Kentucky case not only caused a backlog in processing Iraqi refugees in 2011, but it also resulted in an overhaul of the refugee screening process.

The Obama administration’s actions were limited to one country and in response to a specific threat — the potential for other Iraqi refugees to take advantage of a flaw in the screening process.

By contrast, Trump ordered a far wider ban — albeit also temporary — without identifying a specific threat.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/

 

[collinsmark]

People are outraged over nothing, ITS NOT A MUSLIM BAN. it's a temporary restriction on travel from terrorist states.

I think Jake Tapper sums up the Trump administration's hypocrisy on the use of the word "ban" pretty well.

 

[PeroK]

To take a different view of Trump's decisions so far: on immigration, the environment and Mexico. These decisions, in themsleves, may be right or wrong and may benefit or disadvantage America. That, as always, is a matter of opinion. I suspect it's safe to say that for every American who sees Trump as the saviour, there is another who sees him as an enemy.

But, the thing that characterises Trump so far, in my opinion, is that it's not enough for him to have won the election, be President, make decisions and wield power. He also has to do this in a politically insensitive and antagonistic way.

He could easily have talked about "tighter border controls" with Mexico. He could easily have quietly done nothing about climate change. He could have simply tightened the existing immigration controls from the countries involved. It's not like prior to Trump it could have been easy for an Iraqi to get a visa or green card, for example. As has been pointed out, there were already special measures in place for these countries.

Instead, I would say, he seems to want to rub his opponents faces in it. For example, many supporters of Trump will not believe in climate change. But, Myron Ebell, his appointment as head of the EPA has said: "the enviornmental movement is the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world".

So, Trump is not content with having control over environmental policy and being able to do what he wants. Instead, he feels the need to proverbially kick the environmentalists in the teeth.

In effect, Trump is going further than simply governing for his own supporters. He is very publicly and aggressively trying to grind the noses of his political opponents and anyone with whom he disagrees into the dirt.

 

[ZapperZ]

In effect, Trump is going further than simply governing for his own supporters. He is very publically and aggressively trying to grind the noses of his political opponents and anyone with whom he disagrees into the dirt.

I will also add that he is verbally abusive, both out of his mouth, and out of his fingers via Twitter. No other US Presidents have stooped so low. This is what is so different this time.

So naturally, when executive decisions such as this is signed, especially when the effectiveness is seriously under questioned, the reaction will be extreme. This should not come as a surprise.

Zz.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Speaking as a retired military member, I find that most people who favor open borders, and no restrictions on immigration, are not very well grounded, if at all, in history, science, or security. A country has to have rules on how to protect that country and it's citizens or you very quickly don't have a country. Deciding who gets in, and how many, is critical to resource management of a country. Screening potential threats before they get into your country is also critical.

The Washington Post article is correct, the current ban would not have stopped the 9/11 attack. However, current screening methods for travelers from Saudi Arabia apparently have been successful; we haven't been attacked by anyone traveling from there since, which is one of the reasons why Saudi Arabians aren't on the banned country list. While none of the 9/11 terrorists came from those 7 temporarily banned countries, all intelligence agencies, the State Department and the DOD have known for decades about the much higher than normal level of people in those countries how have a fundamental hatred of the U.S. and western culture, the means, and the will to perpetrate acts of extreme violence on us. Now combine that fact with almost non-existent U.S. embassy presence in those countries, and you have very few reliable means to screen people before they get here.

All Trump's executive order does is instruct all members of the Executive Branch (not the rest of the Federal government!) to cease processing people into this country until we can review, revise, and build a more robust screening system. Yes, that ban may, and probably will, result in the inconvenience and deaths of some people from those countries because they can't come to America. For Americans, while regrettable, that's infinitely preferable to having Americans (Me, you, and our families) killed and injured by terrorists and disaffected immigrants.

 

[fresh_42]

In case someone wants to read what Terence Tao has to say about it:
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2017...maticians-on-the-immigration-executive-order/

 

[ZapperZ]

Speaking as a retired military member, I find that most people who favor open borders, and no restrictions on immigration, are not very well grounded, if at all, in history, science, or security. A country has to have rules on how to protect that country and it's citizens or you very quickly don't have a country. Deciding who gets in, and how many, is critical to resource management of a country. Screening potential threats before they get into your country is also critical.

The Washington Post article is correct, the current ban would not have stopped the 9/11 attack. However, current screening methods for travelers from Saudi Arabia apparently have been successful; we haven't been attacked by anyone traveling from there since, which is one of the reasons why Saudi Arabians aren't on the banned country list. While none of the 9/11 terrorists came from those 7 temporarily banned countries, all intelligence agencies, the State Department and the DOD have known for decades about the much higher than normal level of people in those countries how have a fundamental hatred of the U.S. and western culture, the means, and the will to perpetrate acts of extreme violence on us. Now combine that fact with almost non-existent U.S. embassy presence in those countries, and you have very few reliable means to screen people before they get here.

All Trump's executive order does is instruct all members of the Executive Branch (not the rest of the Federal government!) to cease processing people into this country until we can review, revise, and build a more robust screening system. Yes, that ban may, and probably will, result in the inconvenience and deaths of some people from those countries because they can't come to America. For Americans, while regrettable, that's infinitely preferable to having Americans (Me, you, and our families) killed and injured by terrorists and disaffected immigrants.

First of all, I don't believe anyone is advocating an open border policy here. I don't think anyone is that naive.

Secondly, what you said is speculation, and lacking solid evidence, it also requires the acceptance of the voice of authority, something that Trump has repeatedly thumbed his nose at during his presidential campaign.

Zz.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

First of all, I don't believe anyone is advocating an open border policy here. I don't think anyone is that naive.

Secondly, what you said is speculation, and lacking solid evidence, it also requires the acceptance of the voice of authority, something that Trump has repeatedly thumbed his nose at during his presidential campaign.

Zz.

You're right, it is only speculation that someone would be injured or killed if they can't get to America.
Do you have a problem with accepting the voice of authority of the intelligence agencies about the level of terrorist threat from those seven countries? Having been to many countries in the Middle East, seen what goes on in them, and been on the receiving end of threat briefings, I don't. When an intelligence officer tells you not to go to locations X, Y, or Z because those are known terrorist camp locations, you don't test those statements without orders and a battalion behind you. You're free to discount my personal recollections all you want.
As for Trump thumbing his nose at various declarations by those agencies, that looks more like skepticism than outright denial of their findings.

 

[mfb]

However, current screening methods for travelers from Saudi Arabia apparently have been successful; we haven't been attacked by anyone traveling from there since, which is one of the reasons why Saudi Arabians aren't on the banned country list.

None of the terror attacks in the last 15 years was done by anyone from the 7 banned countries. The screening methods have been 100% effective for all countries on the ban list. There are other countries where they were not 100% effective.

It is not just a delay in "processing people". It blocks people that were "processed" already from entering the US again. It blocks people currently living in the US from making holidays elsewhere because they would not be allowed to get back in.
I don't get the impression that Trump wants to make a better screening system.

You're right, it is only speculation that someone would be injured or killed if they can't get to America.

The numerous deaths in those countries are not speculations. They are real. The threat by those people, on the other hand, is imaginary. See the empty list of terror attacks from people from there.

 

[ZapperZ]

You're right, it is only speculation that someone would be injured or killed if they can't get to America.
Do you have a problem with accepting the voice of authority of the intelligence agencies about the level of terrorist threat from those seven countries? Having been to many countries in the Middle East, seen what goes on in them, and been on the receiving end of threat briefings, I don't. When an intelligence officer tells you not to go to locations X, Y, or Z because those are known terrorist camp locations, you don't test those statements without orders and a battalion behind you. You're free to discount my personal recollections all you want.
As for Trump thumbing his nose at various declarations by those agencies, that looks more like skepticism than outright denial of their findings.

I have no problems in accepting the voice of authority. That has never been the issue here. Instead, it has been the issue for Trump, and what you call "skepticism", I call "thumbing his nose". He has dismissed and belittled intelligence reports, majority scientific consensus on the enviroment/climate, and many more. So it is rather ironic that now, we are being asked to take his word for it that these measures will make us safe. What was it based on if he has such low regards for what has come out of the State Dept. and other military intelligence? The downgrading of the Joint Chiefs in his National Security advisors is one such sign.

Zz.

 

[clope023]

People are outraged over nothing, ITS NOT A MUSLIM BAN.

Trump called Rudy Giuliani and asked him how a MUSLIM BAN could be done in a legal fashion; this is the result.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sion-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.7ac13ab1c485

 

[atyy]

And the press aids this by calling it an "anti-Muslim ban" even though it only affects about 7% of the world muslim population.

The ban is an anti-Muslim ban because this is Trump making good on his anti-Muslim promises. Certainly, he may have crafted it so that it may pass legal muster, but above the law there is right and wrong intent, and this is clearly on the side of wrong intent.

 

[mheslep]

US screening methods can not be said to have been "100% effective" for all countries on the seven country list, when it may be that instead domestic law enforcement has been somewhat effective, so far. Recall the Ohio State attacker (Somali refugee) who put 11 people in the hospital in November. Must US action wait for attacks like those which have occurred in Europe (several of them from Syria)? The government is not effective or even sovreign in some of those countries. How can vetting be considered to be highly effective as opposed to, say, dependent on law enforcement to remedy entry mistakes?

 

[mheslep]

The ban is an anti-Muslim ban because this is Trump making good on his anti-Muslim promises. Certainly, he may have crafted it so that it may pass legal muster, but above the law there is right and wrong intent, and this is clearly on the side of wrong intent.

Trump also tossed out during the early campaign his sister (3rd circuit, appeals) would make a "phenomenal" SCOTUS appointment. Does that mean that the nominee Gorsuch is the President's sister?

 

[StatGuy2000]

US screening methods can not be said to have been "100% effective" for all countries on the seven country list, when it may be that instead domestic law enforcement has been somewhat effective, so far. Recall the Ohio State attacker (Somali refugee) who put 11 people in the hospital in November. Must US action wait for attacks like those which have occurred in Europe (several of them from Syria)? The government is not effective government in some of those countries. How can vetting be considered to be highly effective as opposed to, say, dependent on law enforcement to remedy entry mistakes?

mheslep, implicit in your assumption above is that somehow, all people from the seven countries on that list (assuming that the Trump administration is satisfied will be the final list, and not just a trial run to be expanded to include more countries) are potential terrorists or criminals in the making. That is in effect making an unwarranted, sweeping judgement on entire groups of people based solely on their ethnic or national origin -- the very definition of racism.

As for the attacks that occurred in Europe that you mention -- none of them have been proven to be linked to Syrian refugees (point me to a reliable source indicating such proof). Even if I grant you that there were some Syrians involved in the attacks in Europe, you cannot therefore conclude that all Syrians are terrorists/criminals or potential terrorists/criminals. By that same logic, all Norwegians are right-wingers (because of Anders Breyvik), all Germans are neo-Nazis and all Russians are Putin supporters, so why not ban all Norwegians, Germans, or Russians from entering the US? But no one seriously proposes this, now do we?

Frankly, you (just like the Trump administration and his supporters -- perhaps you're a Trump supporter?) are resorting to fear-mongering.

 

[Astronuc]

However, current screening methods for travelers from Saudi Arabia apparently have been successful; we haven't been attacked by anyone traveling from there since [2011], which is one of the reasons why Saudi Arabians aren't on the banned country list.

A slight correction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

The perpetrators, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married couple living in the city of Redlands, targeted a San Bernardino County Department of Public Health training event and Christmas party, of about 80 employees, in a rented banquet room. Farook was an American-born U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, who worked as a health department employee. Malik was a Pakistani-born lawful permanent resident of the United States.

Farook and Malik had traveled to Saudi Arabia in the years before the attack. The couple had amassed a large stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and bomb-making equipment in their home.

There are various news reports that include the fact that Farook and Malik traveled to Saudi Arabia, and Malik spent time in Saudi Arabia before marrying Farook.

Since the two were from Pakistan and they had recently visited Saudi Arabia, according to claims by the Trump and his staff, then folks from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should be subject to his executive order.

Current screening methods that apply to persons from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are also applied to the 7 countries listed in Trump's EO.

Trump does have business interests in Saudi Arabia.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Perhaps a different thread should be made for my question, but if we have any affected PF members I'd like to hear your perspective. Also, my thoughts are with those people whose life has been made difficult by this. I have quite a few Iranian friends at my school that are at a loss what to do. They often go home between semesters.

-Dave K

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, implicit in your assumption above is that somehow, all people from the seven countries on that list...

I neither said nor implied 'all' people do or are anything, nor do I have any assertion at this point about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of this particular immigration order with regards to US security. The United States has long identified countries that pose a risk because of, say, large numbers of foreign fighters. Most recently (2016), from CBP:

...DHS remains concerned about the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States for operational purposes on their own or at the behest of violent extremist groups.

As for the attacks that occurred in Europe that you mention -- none of them have been proven to be linked to Syrian refugees.

Daleel in Germany, and others? If you disagree with the source I'm happy to entertain a better one. See the link on Europe provided above:

...In 2007 Loa'i Mohammad Haj Bakr al-Saqa, a Syrian, was convicted of masterminding the November 2003 truck bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, which killed 57 people. Several other Turkish men, with links to al-Qaeda, were also convicted.

One of the men who carried out the Paris attacks in November 2015 was believed to be Syrian. Ahmad al-Mohammad, 25, blew himself up at the Stade de France stadium. A Syrian passport was found near his body, although the authorities said they believed it was fake. The Paris prosecutor's office said later his fingerprints matched those of a man who arrived on the Greek island of Leros in October, purporting to be a Syrian refugee.

Another of the Stade France suicide bombers was identified as M al-Mahmod, who had also arrived in Leros among refugees. He may have come from Syria although his identity and nationality were never conclusively proved.

In July 2016 Mohammad Daleel, 27, blew himself up outside a wine bar in Ansbach, Germany. Fifteen people were injured. Daleel was a refugee from Syria who had arrived in Germany in 2014 seeking asylum.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Trump didn't do this to make the US safer. He did it exclusively to cater to his core supporters, who need sweeping, draconian words and actions to feel safe. The "Muslim Ban" was very popular among them during his campaign,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/
and this order is simply about keeping them loyal and supportive. They are his power base.

I've seen three ask-a-Trumper articles about this, and the Trumpers are all extremely pleased. Steve Bannon Ted Cruz calls red state voters "low information people," and Steve Bannon openly admires Trump's ability to appeal to "low information" voters. It's a voter base he felt was previously underrated. This ban is about 'feeding' the "low information people."

Edited to correct misattribution of "low information" concept to Bannon: It originated with Cruz.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Trump didn't do this to make the US safer. He did it exclusively to cater to his core supporters, who need sweeping, draconian words and actions to feel safe. The "Muslim Ban" was very popular among them during his campaign,

Well at least a stricter vetting or licencing process for those who need them.
It all seems over the top when there is this elephant in the room.