US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Reductio ad absurdum:

Perhaps we should just ban entry by everyone? That's the only way to guarantee 100% safe immigration.

 

[bob012345]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executive-order.html?_r=0

And some follow-up news from the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/01/quick-rebuke

In my personal opinion, when I had first heard during the presidential campaign, I had thought that Trump's statements on banning all Muslims from entering the US was just bluster. I was wrong (although Trump did lie when he said "all Muslims" --- he meant only "certain Muslims"), and it outrages me that even a temporary ban as described above could take place in the US.

At least the courts were able to step into reign in on the worst excesses of such executive orders.

People, like to bandy the word 'lie' around too much. He toned down the rhetoric to mean a ban on people from certain war ravaged regions which are infested with radical terrorist types which is what he did.No one has an inherent right to enter the U.S., even if granted a visa. Heck, even those with green cards can be detained or deported under certain circumstances. Further, even people granted citizenship have had that citizenship revoked under certain circumstances.

It's a temporary ban and not a permanent statement about immigrants or refugees. Basically, it's a statement that the vetting under the Obama state department shouldn't be trusted.

It all makes sense to me and I utterly reject the moaning about what ISIS might think. People who care what ISIS thinks are clueless and exactly the swamp Trump wants to drain from government. After all, we are going to emasculate ISIS in the end.

 

[bob012345]

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).

I strongly agree. Even if ISIS tries to use politics as a recruitment tool, the government simply cannot let that deter us from doing what policy they believe is best. I'm sure diplomats in the State Dept. quack in their boots with worry over what ISIS thinks, but they are part of the swamp that Trump wants to drain. Trump rightly doesn't give a damn what ISIS thinks, he wants to kill them all.

 

[bob012345]

Reductio ad absurdum:

Perhaps we should just ban entry by everyone? That's the only way to guarantee 100% safe immigration.

My understanding is that the Executive Order does temporarily ban all refugees from all countries for resettlement, and all travelers from seven specific countries. It's not that these refugees can't come in after the ban, just not at the moment.

 

[bob012345]

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

You trust the WP to not put spin on the conversation? I don't. Not after their relentless campaign of anti-Trump hit pieces during the campaign. They have little credibility.

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

They can wait till after the ban. It's that simple. Sorry, but I'm not willing to ignore the security of all Americans to please your Iranian friends.They should be willing to understand. People can wait a few months.

 

[dkotschessaa]

You trust the WP to not put spin on the conversation? I don't. Not after their relentless campaign of anti-Trump hit pieces during the campaign. They have little credibility.

They can wait till after the ban. It's that simple. Sorry, but I'm not willing to ignore the security of all Americans to please your Iranian friends.They should be willing to understand. People can wait a few months.

Most violence in America is committed by Americans. There is no security to be gained here. It is just pandering.

Also I think you are vastly underestimating how complicated this is going to make life for many people, for really no reason.

-Dave K

 

[bob012345]

Former CIA director Hayden believes it will exacerbate anti-US sentiment, ultimately causing more problems than it is alleged to solve:

http://www.mediaite.com/print/forme...utive-order-inarguably-has-made-us-less-safe/
In other words, it fuels the radical Muslim perception that the US is anti-Muslim, and fosters their recruitment of more Muslims to radical extremism.

He's part of the swamp Trump is draining. Those who care what ISIS thinks are part of the problem. Trump will do everything to emasculate ISIS and doesn't give a rats ass what they think. If his order brings the rats out into the open, that's even better.

 

[clope023]

You trust the WP to not put spin on the conversation? I don't. Not after their relentless campaign of anti-Trump hit pieces during the campaign. They have little credibility.

This isn't spin, those were Gulliani's own unfiltered words.

 

[bob012345]

Most violence in America is committed by Americans. There is no security to be gained here. It is just pandering.

Also I think you are vastly underestimating how complicated this is going to make life for many people, for really no reason.

-Dave K

It's not pandering, it's a real concern. But given your logic, we shouldn't waste money vetting refugees at all since the most damage that could be done by one who did turn out to be a terrorist wouldn't amount to much anyway. Sell that to the American public. Especially if one gets very lucky and gets hold of a small nuke.

I'm sorry some people are temporarily inconvenienced. I really am. I myself volunteer helping refugees, mostly Muslims, to speak better English. When they get here I welcome them and try to help. But I think they need to be vetted better. I support the temporary ban.

 

[zoobyshoe]

He's part of the swamp Trump is draining.

I assume what you mean by Trump 'draining the swamp' is Bannon's avowed goal of tearing the Washington establishment apart. I, personally, was fine with the "swamp" and don't think Bannon has anything in mind that remotely constitutes an improvement.

Those who care what ISIS thinks are part of the problem. Trump will do everything to emasculate ISIS and doesn't give a rats ass what they think. If his order brings the rats out into the open, that's even better.

No one cares what ISIS thinks. It's what they DO that's concerning. Handing them gratuitous propaganda tools is just selling guns to the Indians. More rigorous vetting procedures could have been worked out without the ban and implemented when ready.

 

[bob012345]

I assume what you mean by Trump 'draining the swamp' is Bannon's avowed goal of tearing the Washington establishment apart. I, personally, was fine with the "swamp" and don't think Bannon has anything in mind that remotely constitutes an improvement.

No one cares what ISIS thinks. It's what they DO that's concerning. Handing them gratuitous propaganda tools is just selling guns to the Indians. More rigorous vetting procedures could have been worked out without the ban and implemented when ready.

Trump did it the way he did it in my view partly to send a shock to the system. So people would know beyond doubt he is serious. Whatever ISIS does is solely on them, not on anyone else in any way, regardless of perceived 'propaganda'. It's doubtful to think ISIS would ever make nice regardless of what America does or doesn't do. ISIS tries to rationalize their terror by whatever means. No one should buy their arguments.

Developing and deploying better vetting in quiet doesn't put people on notice. Trump put the world on notice and will use the responses to know how to deal with each country.

Those professional diplomats bitterly complaining they would have done things smoother and wouldn't have created a backlash are missing the point. I think Trump intended the backlash. He intended some disruption and chaos. It's all part of the plan. He's a change agent and change can be messy sometimes.

 

[dkotschessaa]

It's not pandering, it's a real concern.

Where's the data to support that? Trump vowed to ban all Muslims. He can't actually do that, but this makes a very good appearance. I don't see how it's not pandering.

But given your logic, we shouldn't waste money vetting refugees at all since the most damage that could be done by one who did turn out to be a terrorist wouldn't amount to much anyway. Sell that to the American public. Especially if one gets very lucky and gets hold of a small nuke.

Please show me a list of refugees who have committed violent crimes in the United States. If this list is not empty, then show me how this list compares with a list of non-immigrant Americans who have committed violent crimes in the united states.

-Dave K

 

[PeroK]

Trump put the world on notice and will use the responses to know how to deal with each country.

Yes, that sums up the situation perfectly. We are all on notice and Trump will decide how to deal with us!

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

"Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!

There's grinding people's noses in it, and there's also rudely bullying them aside without explanation, as he apparently did in the creation and release of the Muslim ban:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...87d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.ae59b6adcef5

 

[Evo]

I understand your point about being unconstitutional .If most people are for stricter gun control laws it would be a good place to start rather than Reductio ad absurdum.That way you can have most of your cake and eat it with the support of the people.
What I don't understand is why this type of action is not more prominent.
If we are are going to take safety seriously rather than causing upset.

No more discussion on guns. Gun posts will be deleted.

 

[mfb]

They can wait till after the ban. It's that simple.

Do you really expect that the ban is temporary? That Trump just sits there and let's the ban expire without preparing a follow-up legislation to make it permanent, potentially including even more countries?
Trump said he wants a "Muslim ban", and the current executive order was the closest thing he could get done quickly.

Not being allowed to go home, even if it turns out to be just for 3 months (let's stay optimistic), is more than just a bit inconvenient.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Do you really expect that the ban is temporary? That Trump just sits there and let's the ban expire without preparing a follow-up legislation to make it permanent, potentially including even more countries?
Trump said he wants a "Muslim ban", and the current executive order was the closest thing he could get done quickly.

Not being allowed to go home, even if it turns out to be just for 3 months (let's stay optimistic), is more than just a bit inconvenient.

mfb is exactly right on this front -- the discussion here on PF (as well as elsewhere) assume that the ban is in fact temporary, when it really could be just an initial trial-run for a more permanent ban on Muslims (or people from predominantly Muslim countries) from entering the US. Perhaps it could even be an initial trial run towards an establishment of a "Muslim registry" of all Muslim Americans, reminiscent of what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII. We really don't know how far the Trump administration would allow themselves to go in this regard.

 

[dkotschessaa]

mfb is exactly right on this front -- the discussion here on PF (as well as elsewhere) assume that the ban is in fact temporary, when it really could be just an initial trial-run for a more permanent ban on Muslims (or people from predominantly Muslim countries) from entering the US. Perhaps it could even be an initial trial run towards an establishment of a "Muslim registry" of all Muslim Americans, reminiscent of what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII. We really don't know how far the Trump administration would allow themselves to go in this regard.

Yes, the idea was tossed around: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN13B05C

 

[StevieTNZ]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...acre-that-never-happened-to-defend-travel-ban

During a Thursday interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Conway defended President Donald Trump's travel ban related to seven majority-Muslim countries.

However in doing so, she made a reference to two Iraqi refugees whom she described as the masterminds behind "the Bowling Green Massacre."

This whole administration is a laugh.

 

[bob012345]

Where's the data to support that? Trump vowed to ban all Muslims. He can't actually do that, but this makes a very good appearance. I don't see how it's not pandering.
Please show me a list of refugees who have committed violent crimes in the United States. If this list is not empty, then show me how this list compares with a list of non-immigrant Americans who have committed violent crimes in the united states.

-Dave K

You are conveniently cherry-picking Trumps statements. You say he vowed to ban all Muslims. But you ignore that was not his final position and you omit that any ban was clearly stated as a temporary measure until the vetting was improved. He clearly stated at the start that it was both temporary and that America is going to continue its long tradition of welcoming refugees after the vetting process is beefed up. Clearly, you are not being fair about what Trump said.

Regarding you asking for a list, I don't have to but I do assume that list is not empty. But the State dept. vetting process certainly failed with Tashfeen Malik, the San Benardino shooter and Pakistani born wife of Rizwan Farook, a U.S. born person of Pakistani parents. Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was watched being radicalized by the F.B.I. yet was allowed to go off the watch list and they lost track. So yes, we even have to worry about the children of immigrants being radicalized.

If your argument is that more Americans may have committed crimes than those refugees or immigrants means that we shouldn't worry about the added crimes refuges bring because they are a smaller number, my answer is why should we use crimes by Americans as an excuse to allow crimes by refugees or immigrants? Perhaps that falls under some kind of 'liberal logic' but I doubt Spock would approve. It's not a zero sum game. We know violent crime by 'undocumented' persons in the U.S. is a real problem. If the INS and State dept. can't handle that I don't believe them when they claim their vetting process is that good. When elected officials vow to release criminal aliens onto the streets rather than coordinate with the INS to deport them, I'm worried. The system is broken. I don't trust the mayors of SF or other 'sanctuary cities' to turn over a refugee showing signs of radicalization to the federal authorities until that person actually commits an act of terror. I think they will protect them. That's a huge problem.

Trump doesn't have to prove refugees have committed crimes to order vetting beefed up from people coming in from Middle Eastern war zones. But as a physics guy you are familiar with probabilities. What is the probability that zero persons who have entered the U.S. as refugees in the last five years have committed any crime? We are to assume that a population of many tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands are crime free! More to the point, what is the probability that zero persons who entered as refugees from Muslim countries at war have absolutely zero sympathies for terrorist groups? Can you prove there is none when both Muslim immigrants, as versed to refugees, and or the children of Muslim immigrants born here, have indeed committed terror on U.S. soil. So, the issue is even broader and deeper.

I'm all for helping refugees, as I said I help some learn English, but if Trump wants to make the vetting process stronger before we let in more refugees from radical infested Middle Eastern war zones, I think that's totally called for.

 

[bob012345]

Do you really expect that the ban is temporary? That Trump just sits there and let's the ban expire without preparing a follow-up legislation to make it permanent, potentially including even more countries?
Trump said he wants a "Muslim ban", and the current executive order was the closest thing he could get done quickly.

Not being allowed to go home, even if it turns out to be just for 3 months (let's stay optimistic), is more than just a bit inconvenient.

I do expect it to be temporary. I'm all for refugees being helped. I just want stronger vetting. As a girl, my Jewish mother just barely escaped Continental Europe before WW2 started. Her mother died in a concentration camp. I teach English to Muslim refugees from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries. If it's not temporary, I'll reassess my position.

 

[dkotschessaa]

@bob012345 Firstly, the burden of proof is on the one making a claim. It's not up to me to prove that something hasn't happened. It's up to you to back up your claim that there is a danger from this or that group.

Secondly, you've introduced, in addition to your unsupported claims, a number of strawman arguments i.e. " we shouldn't worry about the added crimes refuges bring because they are a smaller number."

Stick to the facts, back them up, and avoid logical fallacies, and don't try to challenge me on logic. You will lose.

-Dave K

 

[PeroK]

Regarding you asking for a list, I don't have to but I do assume that list is not empty. But the State dept. vetting process certainly failed with Tashfeen Malik, the San Benardino shooter and Pakistani born wife of Rizwan Farook, a U.S. born person of Pakistani parents. Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was watched being radicalized by the F.B.I. yet was allowed to go off the watch list and they lost track. So yes, we even have to worry about the children of immigrants being radicalized.

I'm all for helping refugees, as I said I help some learn English, but if Trump wants to make the vetting process stronger before we let in more refugees from radical infested Middle Eastern war zones, I think that's totally called for.

What I find hard to accept is that the US immigration, security and law enforcement services have been lax or incompetent in the 15 years since 9/11. Given the sheer number of people that travel to and from the US, and given the number of people out there who would like nothing better than another 9/11, I think it's a testament to these guys that so little has happened in the US since 9/11.

In one sense Trump has been clever in that he has created the impression that Obama was letting everyone in and he's going to stop the threat to America. I was watching the news last night a woman from Stoke-on-Trent in England wants Trump to be the British Prime Minister because "he's doing something about the terrorists".

I think the term is false narrative. For what it's worth the narrative I believe is that Bush and Blair were warned by their security experts on the dangers of war in Iraq and the resultant rise in Islamic extremism. They ignored this, partly because their world-view was that there are good people and bad people and good people are good no matter what and the bad people are bad no matter what. Hence, war in Iraq couldn't create any more bad people. Whereas, the security services view is that bad people (or at least people willing to do bad things) are created by circumstances. And, we are still living with the consequences - and will be for some time.

I don't buy the narrative that Obama was soft on terrorism. In fact, I think that in terms of US security Obama was much less liberal than many people would like to believe.

 

[bob012345]

@bob012345 Firstly, the burden of proof is on the one making a claim. It's not up to me to prove that something hasn't happened. It's up to you to back up your claim that there is a danger from this or that group.

Secondly, you've introduced, in addition to your unsupported claims, a number of strawman arguments i.e. " we shouldn't worry about the added crimes refuges bring because they are a smaller number."

Stick to the facts, back them up, and avoid logical fallacies, and don't try to challenge me on logic. You will lose.

-Dave K

That's your strawman argument, not mine. What unsupported claims? I don't have to prove anything to want stronger U.S. vetting. It's my prerogative. You seem pretty confident in your logic. Why?

Do you agree the president has the right to change the vetting process and make it stronger or not? What would you do to beef up vetting of refugees? Do refugees have a Constitutional right to immigrate to the U.S.?

 

[dkotschessaa]

That's your strawman argument, not mine.

Please read about what a straw man argument is.

What unsupported claims?

"it's a real concern. "

i.e. People coming from the banned countries. Source?

"We know violent crime by 'undocumented' persons in the U.S. is a real problem."

Source? And please define "real problem."

"When elected officials vow to release criminal aliens onto the streets rather than coordinate with the INS to deport them..."

Source?

You seem pretty confident in your logic. Why?

Because it's stone cold impeccable. -Dave K

 

[HossamCFD]

Do you agree the president has the right to change the vetting process and make it stronger or not?

The dispute here isn't about whether he has the right or not. It largely isn't even about the vetting, it's about whether the temporary ban was a right move.

What would you do to beef up vetting of refugees?

That's a good question. Since you are the one arguing for an improved vetting, perhaps you can tell us how can it beefed up. I'd be particularly interested to know what are the specific problems you see with the current (well, before the ban) one. And whether you have an idea how horrendously long and hard it is.

Do refugees have a Constitutional right to immigrate to the U.S.?

No they don't. No one here argued that they do. Accepting refugees is a huge act of humanitarian kindness, it's not an obligation. The US has every right to be on the wrong side of history, if she so chooses.

 

[XZ923]

mfb is exactly right on this front -- the discussion here on PF (as well as elsewhere) assume that the ban is in fact temporary, when it really could be just an initial trial-run for a more permanent ban on Muslims (or people from predominantly Muslim countries) from entering the US. Perhaps it could even be an initial trial run towards an establishment of a "Muslim registry" of all Muslim Americans, reminiscent of what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII. We really don't know how far the Trump administration would allow themselves to go in this regard.

No offense, but this is what they call "fear-mongering". There is no way in contemporary America that there will be a "Muslim Registry" or a religious test for immigration. It's blatantly unconstitutional. It's a lock that all 48 Democrats would oppose it in the Senate and probably at least half the GOP. Certainly there are some Senators from deep red states that might go for it but I'd bet my car against 5 dollars a supermajority would oppose it. And if it ever got to the Supreme Court, it would be at minimum a 6-2 vote against it with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberal contingent (it would probably be 8-0.)

This is exactly why our system of checks and balances is so important and it's exactly why Democrats should have been more cautious about lauding Obama's "pen and phone" philosophy on using executive orders to bypass the legislature. Trump is simply using the same executive power Obama made mainstream. He's just using it from a different ideology.

 

[clope023]

No offense, but this is what they call "fear-mongering". There is no way in contemporary America that there will be a "Muslim Registry" or a religious test for immigration. It's blatantly unconstitutional. It's a lock that all 48 Democrats would oppose it in the Senate and probably at least half the GOP. Certainly there are some Senators from deep red states that might go for it but I'd bet my car against 5 dollars a supermajority would oppose it. And if it ever got to the Supreme Court, it would be at minimum a 6-2 vote against it with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberal contingent (it would probably be 8-0.)

This is exactly why our system of checks and balances is so important and it's exactly why Democrats should have been more cautious about lauding Obama's "pen and phone" philosophy on using executive orders to bypass the legislature. Trump is simply using the same executive power Obama made mainstream. He's just using it from a different ideology.

It could still happen; there's supposed to be no religious test for office too, yet in the present climate it's effectively impossible to become president unless you're some variant of a Christian.

 

[bob012345]

Please read about what a straw man argument is.
"it's a real concern. "

i.e. People coming from the banned countries. Source?

"We know violent crime by 'undocumented' persons in the U.S. is a real problem."

Source? And please define "real problem."

"When elected officials vow to release criminal aliens onto the streets rather than coordinate with the INS to deport them..."

Source?
Because it's stone cold impeccable. -Dave K

It is a real concern to me. Polls show it's a concern to many voters. It's a concern to the White House security team. It's a concern to Congress.

Listen to what SF mayor Lee recently said about resisting the Trump administration and not cooperating with federal authorities. Last year they released a known criminal alien who then murdered a young woman.

The dispute here isn't about whether he has the right or not. It largely isn't even about the vetting, it's about whether the temporary ban was a right move.That's a good question. Since you are the one arguing for an improved vetting, perhaps you can tell us how can it beefed up. I'd be particularly interested to know what are the specific problems you see with the current (well, before the ban) one. And whether you have an idea how horrendously long and hard it is.No they don't. No one here argued that they do. Accepting refugees is a huge act of humanitarian kindness, it's not an obligation. The US has every right to be on the wrong side of history, if she so chooses.

I think the temporary ban is the right move. I'm far more concerned about keeping Americans safe than I am about appearing humane to other countries and or certain political groups. Regarding Syria for example, the world should have created a safe zone to keep them until the war ended and then repatriated then back. Germany made a huge mistake letting in so many Syrian refugees. They may have to repatriate them eventually back to Syria. Even if the U.S. agrees to take large numbers if Syrian refugees for example, it should be on a temporary basis, till they can be repatriated in my view. However hard the visa process is, it's not hard enough. One of the San Bernardino shooters got through that 'tough' process. Clearly it failed.

How would I beef it up? A great question which is being considered at the highest levels of power right now. I don't have to have the answer to support them asking the question.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No offense, but this is what they call "fear-mongering". There is no way in contemporary America that there will be a "Muslim Registry" or a religious test for immigration. It's blatantly unconstitutional. It's a lock that all 48 Democrats would oppose it in the Senate and probably at least half the GOP.

As a matter of fact, though, Bush started a Muslim Registry after 911, and it continued into the Obama administration when it was laid aside, simply because it has resulted in 0 convictions of any terrorists:

Okay, but it was pretty effective in stopping terrorists -- right?
Actually, no. It didn't result in a single terrorism conviction.
The American Civil Liberties Union told CNN this week that NSEERS "actually made genuine efforts at trying to combat terrorism more difficult by destroying relationships with immigrant communities and actually negatively impacting the ability of the federal government to cooperate with foreign governments in fighting terrorism."
The program also ignored credible data from think tanks, including the New America Foundation, showing that most domestic terror attacks are carried out by US citizens.
In 2011, nearly a decade after its creation, President Barack Obama's administrationsuspended NSEERS by taking all 25 countries off its list. In December 2016, it finally ended it.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attributed the program's suspension to its redundancies and inefficiencies, not pressure from rights groups -- though it did welcome the decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics/nseers-muslim-database-qa-trnd/

Trump's once proposed Muslim registry would have been a resurrection and modification of Bush's.

There may be some confusion here between the concept of a "registry" and the outright rounding up and internment of Japanese Americans during WWII in dedicated internment camps.

 

[mfb]

We'll see how long the ban lasts. Proper immigration rules afterwards would really surprise me.

It is a real concern to me. Polls show it's a concern to many voters. It's a concern to the White House security team. It's a concern to Congress.

Ask people about dihydrogen monoxide and you'll get many signatures for a ban of this "dangerous chemical". You'll also get some signatures if you suggest banning atoms or atomic nuclei. Is banning water, or directly banning all matter, an actual concern for people signing? Or do they perceive it as concern if someone tells them it would be one?

Or maybe I misunderstand what exactly you call "concern". Is accidental ingestion of lamp oil a concern for you? How often do you worry about this, and does the position of the candidates on lamp oil influence your vote? While I don't have numbers for the US, it should have a similar death toll than terrorism. It is a very obscure and extremely rare danger.

You should not ignore it. But completely banning all people from 7 countries for a largely imaginary threat (terrorists are from elsewhere, and mainly from the US) is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut, it is a nuclear weapon to open a raw egg.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/polit...training-order-on-trump-travel-ban/index.html

 

[mfb]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/polit...training-order-on-trump-travel-ban/index.html

Trump travel ban: Seattle judge issues nationwide block [of the ban]

Looks chaotic.

 

[nsaspook]

Trump travel ban: Seattle judge issues nationwide block [of the ban]

Looks chaotic.

It sure does. Maybe now we will finally have a long discussion about the limits of executive power via executive orders that's long overdue. It seems to me that congress and the courts have ceded far too much power by default to the president in the last couple of administrations.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Zeroth, I told myself I shouldn't reply to this, since there is so much talking and so little listening. In a moment of reckless optimism, though, I thought I'd post this:

First, I think one should discuss this on the basis of what actually was done, not based on what you or anyone else thinks Trump's "real plan" is. I would even argue that if someone here were to say to a PF member "you really mean X" when they say "Y", the mentors would step in. Besides, there is plenty to criticize based on what's actually there. We don't have to look for phantoms.

Next, Trumps viewpoints...um...evolve. (Understatement of the year!) Unlike many of them, his views here have pretty much evolved in the same direction. Fortune magazine did a really nice job of chronicling this.

Third, I think there is a misunderstanding of the impact, and I think the media are perpetuating this. If I were a cynic, I would even suggest they have their own motivations to do this. We're told the seven countries are dominating the 60,000-100,000 visas canceled (depending on whose number you believe). I looked at 2015, the last year statistics were available and the total number of visas issued in these countries is 11,106. So where do all the extra people come from? It has to be Syrian refugees.

That can certainly be argued - the case can be made that US has played a role in creating the situation in Syria and so should take in more refugees. The case can also be made that some very bad actors have sneaked into other countries posing as Syrian refugees. I don't want to argue either side - just point out that the numbers suggest a different story than most news sources are covering.