US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

[atyy]

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.

Trump's statements on Muslims are simply morally unacceptable, on the same level as banning Jews or Christians. His defended his viewpoint on the issue when pressed, and giving him the benefit of doubt at this point would be at best foolish.

However, I agree that the tools we use to combat him should be based on what he has "actually" done, where the "actually" is what is visible to the law. This can be discussed and hopefully go somewhere - like the supreme court.

I do agree the numerical impact may be overstated, but the big concern, I believe, is that many Americans do not want bigotry perpetuated under legal cover.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Trump's statements on Muslims are simply morally unacceptable

Then argue against the statements.

It saves one the problem of having to figure out the "real reason" and "ultimate plan" of a particular action, as well as the possibly uncomfortable question of "would you approve of similar actions if carried out by someone else?" (A question that can logically have the answer "Yes", if the argument is based on intent over effect)

There's plenty to attack by taking things at face value.

 

[atyy]

Then argue against the statements.

It saves one the problem of having to figure out the "real reason" and "ultimate plan" of a particular action, as well as the possibly uncomfortable question of "would you approve of similar actions if carried out by someone else?" (A question that can logically have the answer "Yes", if the argument is based on intent over effect)

Actually, I think it is very close - if it were someone else, I might not object so strongly (I might think the action is stupid, rather than deliberately immoral).

There's plenty to attack by taking things at face value.

Suppose it goes to the supreme court, without taking Trump's anti-Muslim statements into account, it doesn't seem very clear to me which side the argument should go. What would you attack if you took things at face value?

 

[HossamCFD]

The case can also be made that some very bad actors have sneaked into other countries posing as Syrian refugees.

A point often overlooked is that these other countries don't benefit from the Atlantic ocean as a natural barrier. Refugees can and do just show up in continental Europe and be vetted/dealt with after the fact. That's mostly not the case for the US. They have to be admitted, which happens after an insanely long process of vetting and check ups (up to 2 years if I remember correctly). A terrorist trying to sneak in this way will have to be hopelessly stupid, since this is by far the hardest way to get in. This probably explains the lack/infrequency of such attacks in the US.

 

[HossamCFD]

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.

I'm not sure I follow this. Many Visas are valid for a few years. If one year amounts to 11,106, then the total number of Visa holders from these countries seem indeed in the ballpark of 60,000.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Many Visas are valid for a few years.

That's a good point, but the majority of these visas are probably B's (90% of US visas are B's), which are limited to a year for the first one. The longer term ones, like J's usually have the person already in the US, so the vast majority of them are not affected by the ban. You certainly won't get to 100,000 by looking at J visas

 

[mfb]

The longer term ones, like J's usually have the person already in the US, so the vast majority of them are not affected by the ban.

How are they not affected by the ban? They cannot leave the US if they want to return.

 

[bob012345]

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.

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.

The visa numbers may be grossly inflated. I think they refer to potential travelers, not actual travelers.

Please someone tell me, does the stay only apply to visa holders or does if prohibit the Trump administration from blocking new visa applications from those countries as well? If so, who controls the visa process?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think they refer to potential travelers, not actual travelers.

Why not then the combined population of those countries? Aren't they potential travelers?

How are they not affected by the ban?

I should have written immediately affected - but of course, postponing travel by 90 days is less severe than being told in the midst of travel that you can't re-enter.

Suppose it goes to the supreme court, without taking Trump's anti-Muslim statements into account, it doesn't seem very clear to me which side the argument should go. What would you attack if you took things at face value?

I guess my position that the purpose of courts in a democracy is not to prevent stupid, yet legal acts.

 

[bob012345]

Why not then the combined population of those countries? Aren't they potential travelers?
I should have written immediately affected - but of course, postponing travel by 90 days is less severe than being told in the midst of travel that you can't re-enter.
I guess my position that the purpose of courts in a democracy is not to prevent stupid, yet legal acts.

The very disturbing thing is that the Stay was decided not on the basis of the legal arguments, but because the judge thought that harm was being done. Like the legality was not the issue. So, does the judge think any law can be overturned because he thinks it may do harm in his opinion? Isn't that a political ruling?

If Trump gets a reprieve against the stay, it will be chaos as he might then be able to kick out those who were just let in.

 

[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 prove Trump is 'pandering' first. Show evidence, not others opinions. You must prove you know why he thinks what he thinks and what his true motivations are. Can you prove that scientifically?

@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

Are you arguing that I or Trump must prove our case to want stronger vetting over to deal with the existing threat? Are you arguing the current vetting is precisely the best we can do?

Let's avoid opinions and stick to facts please.

It's impossible to debate the travel ban without some measure of opinion. Policy is not physics. There is no absolute fact based
argument for every single issue. Even what people claim to be facts are debated. What constitutes an acceptable source? A NYT
article? A report by a NGO? What if that NGO has a definite bias?

 

[mfb]

I should have written immediately affected - but of course, postponing travel by 90 days is less severe than being told in the midst of travel that you can't re-enter.

This is again assuming the ban is purely temporary. But even then: What happens if a close family member dies, for example? "Yeah, you can go to your family. But we have no idea if you can come back to the US. Why don't you wait 3 months with your family matters, maybe then the future legal situation will be clear."

 

[bob012345]

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

You ridicule it as a 'largely imaginary' threat. How much is real? Can you put a hard, absolute scientific number on what the threat is and what exactly constitutes appropriate action with zero human judgement involved? Human judgement is not entirely 'factual'. Do you argue no stronger vetting is required? What is your plan? Here is a sourced fact*. Polls show a significant minority of the public does support the ban. A slight majority oppose. But Trump doesn't have to get public approval to act. The Courts have intervened but that process is only beginning and we don't know which way it will go. It the Temporary Stay is upheld, and the court acts on the merits, ultimately getting to SCOTUS, overturning the Order, there are many options for Trump to implement stronger vetting. He may just stop issuing new visas. No one has a Constitutional right to get a visa to come to the U.S.

* http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/poll-trump-immigration-order-234601

 

[bob012345]

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.

Prove Trump's motivation was what you said. You may use any interrogation technique currently acceptable by the Geneva Convention.

 

[collinsmark]

Prove Trump's motivation [...]

I won't attempt to prove anybody's motivation. But it is reasonable to cite patterns of behavior.

In terms of the Muslim, travel ban being temporary, let's start with another item that was promised to be temporary: Trump's temporary delay in releasing his tax returns. I can cite many times (dozens?) where Trump assured the American people that the delay in releasing his tax returns was only temporary, and that he would absolutely release them later. Well, that was about a year ago from his first promise.

So where are Trump's tax returns? Should we still take him at his word that he is going to release them? Was he really being honest like he claimed? Or was he lying about it being temporary the whole time? Oh, wait; here's the answer: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-returns.html

So, based on past behavior, why should we find his claim about the temporariness of the ban credible?

Has the president been credible in other ways? Is there a patter of behavior here? Take these claims made by the Trump and his administration:
(i) The crowd size of the inauguration being a million and a half people extending back to the Washington monument.
(ii) Millions of illegal votes cast for Hillary Clinton.
(iii) A terror attack occurred on American soil called the "Bowling Green Massacre."

These are just lies for the sake of lies. He didn't even have to make these lies. Nobody really cares that in truth that not too many people showed up for his inauguration. People understand that he won the electoral vote; there's no reason to lie about it.

It reminds me of the ridiculous propaganda of Kim Jong-un (North Korea), where he, in the first round of golf he ever played in his life, shot a 38-under par round that included no fewer than 11 holes in one. That's just lying for the sake of lying.

Trump is lying just for the sake of lying. He has no credibility.

If you disagree with me, throw me an olive branch and get Trump to release his tax returns.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Prove Trump's motivation was what you said. You may use any interrogation technique currently acceptable by the Geneva Convention.

Feel free to regard all things as opinion that obviously are opinion. It gets tedious sometimes to flag every opinion you express as opinion. Or maybe I should say, IMO it gets tedious.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I won't attempt to prove anybody's motivation. But it is reasonable to cite patterns of behavior.

Yes. The indicators the Muslim ban was merely an attempt to 'feed' his hardcore base are quite strong, IMO. But, of course, that doesn't constitute proof. After the election he completely backpedaled on his popular promise to investigate and jail Hillary. It turned out, he never had any intention of doing that, and that rattled and upset his followers. He's under pressure from them now to prove he didn't lie completely across the board. So, first, he returned to the promise of a wall. But that didn't quite work because he stumbled on how he was going to "make" Mexico pay for it. Desperate to appease them, he rushes to cobble together and issue the abbreviated Muslim ban. This worked: they liked it. That's how I see it.

 

[bob012345]

I won't attempt to prove anybody's motivation. But it is reasonable to cite patterns of behavior.

In terms of the Muslim, travel ban being temporary, let's start with another item that was promised to be temporary: Trump's temporary delay in releasing his tax returns. I can cite many times (dozens?) where Trump assured the American people that the delay in releasing his tax returns was only temporary, and that he would absolutely release them later. Well, that was about a year ago from his first promise.

So where are Trump's tax returns? Should we still take him at his word that he is going to release them? Was he really being honest like he claimed? Or was he lying about it being temporary the whole time? Oh, wait; here's the answer: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-returns.html

So, based on past behavior, why should we find his claim about the temporariness of the ban credible?

Has the president been credible in other ways? Is there a patter of behavior here? Take these claims made by the Trump and his administration:
(i) The crowd size of the inauguration being a million and a half people extending back to the Washington monument.
(ii) Millions of illegal votes cast for Hillary Clinton.
(iii) A terror attack occurred on American soil called the "Bowling Green Massacre."

These are just lies for the sake of lies. He didn't even have to make these lies. Nobody really cares that in truth that not too many people showed up for his inauguration. People understand that he won the electoral vote; there's no reason to lie about it.

It reminds me of the ridiculous propaganda of Kim Jong-un (North Korea), where he, in the first round of golf he ever played in his life, shot a 38-under par round that included no fewer than 11 holes in one. That's just lying for the sake of lying.

Trump is lying just for the sake of lying. He has no credibility.

If you disagree with me, throw me an olive branch and get Trump to release his tax returns.

If Trump's taxes were in violation of IRS code, why didn't the IRS ever bring any complaints or charges against him?

 

[TurtleMeister]

Polls show a significant minority of the public does support the ban. A slight majority oppose.

Considering how accurate the polls were for the presidential election I am somehow not impressed by this. And in my opinion the news media has lost so much credibility that I have little trust in what they report, or what they don't report. I base my opinions mostly on my personal life experiences. This is pretty sad because at one time a journalist's core creed was the public trust.

 

[Evo]

you prove Trump is 'pandering' first. Show evidence, not others opinions. You must prove you know why he thinks what he thinks and what his true motivations are. Can you prove that scientifically?

That's not how this works, the onus is on you to prove what you said.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is pretty sad because at one time a journalist's core creed was the public trust.

When was this? You're not the first person to assert the problem is particularly bad today, but, in my experience, and from what I've read, the media has always been very suspect, going all the way back to 1776.

 

[TurtleMeister]

When was this? You're not the first person to assert the problem is particularly bad today, but, in my experience, and from what I've read, the media has always been suspect, going all the way back to 1776.

Yes, you have to go way back to the early 1900's. Just google journalist's creed.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that all acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.

Also, just check recent polls (if you can trust them:) that say the trust in the news media is at an all time low.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, you have to go way back to the early 1900's. Just google journalist's creed.

Well, that's the official creed. What I'm wondering is whether there was ever actually a time when the public felt they could pick up any newspaper and receive the unvarnished truth, or whether there hasn't always been the accusation of media bias.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Well, that's the official creed. What I'm wondering is whether there was ever actually a time when the public felt they could pick up any newspaper and receive the unvarnished truth, or whether there hasn't always been the accusation of media bias.

Of course not. It's not a truth or non-truth issue. It's on a scale. I certainly had more trust in the news media back in the 60's than I do today.

 

[collinsmark]

So yes, we even have to worry about the children of immigrants being radicalized.

There's a logical continuation to this line of thinking:

We even should worry about immigrant's children's children too, for that matter. They should be treated as suspect of people becoming radicalized.
​

I hope I don't have to spell out the next step or two in this ugly line.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Of course not. It's not a truth or non-truth issue. It's on a scale. I certainly had more trust in the news media back in the 60's than I do today.

The 60's might, indeed, have been a high point because they had that rule about presenting opposing opinions on the news.

 

[nrqed]

Let's avoid opinions and stick to facts please.

This is a requirement in the General Discussion forums? I am just asking because I was not aware of that.

 

[Evo]

This is a requirement in the General Discussion forums? I am just asking because I was not aware of that.

That was in response to a report of a big mess, which I cleaned up, but forgot to delete my post after I deleted the posts. Thanks for reminding me. The rules for CE are here

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/

 

[atyy]

I guess my position that the purpose of courts in a democracy is not to prevent stupid, yet legal acts.

It is not my position exactly, but I am sympathetic to it. I do suspect that from that point of view, Trump's order is constitutional. However, historically even judges like Scalia have taken activist positions: Scalia took an activist position over hanging chads, and I suspect he would also have supported an activist position over slavery (for example, Bush junior did, although he claimed it was not an activist position).

 

[Astronuc]

The very disturbing thing is that the Stay was decided not on the basis of the legal arguments, but because the judge thought that harm was being done. Like the legality was not the issue. So, does the judge think any law can be overturned because he thinks it may do harm in his opinion? Isn't that a political ruling?

As far as I know, the legality is a consideration, and the Federal judge, James L. Robart, is supposed to be writing an opinion/justification this weekend. I would expect matters of 'due process' and 'equal protection' might be considerations, but we'll see.

USA Today has published a copy of the temporary restraining order.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...udges-ruling-trumps-immigration-ban/97484850/I was listening to NPR 'This American Life' this afternoon and caught a discussion of the matter.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/609/its-working-out-very-nicely
and particularly the piece on 'Heavy Vetting', which requires two years.
https://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreening

 

[atyy]

I guess my position that the purpose of courts in a democracy is not to prevent stupid, yet legal acts.

Possibly, one might argue analogously to this:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/25/supreme-court-housing-discrimination/26097319/

 

[Astronuc]

Developments are happening quickly.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lambastes-judge-lifts-travel-ban-vows-fight-002527601--finance.html

WASHINGTON/PALM BEACH, Fla (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said the Justice Department will win an appeal filed late Saturday of a judge's order lifting a travel ban he had imposed on citizens of seven mainly Muslim countries.

"We'll win. For the safety of the country, we'll win," he told reporters at his private Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, shortly after the Justice Department filed a notice that it intends to appeal the order.

Trump's personal attack on U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle went too far for some who said the president was undermining an institution designed to check the power of the White House and Congress.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-travel-ban-20170204-story.html

Justice Department lawyers were preparing to immediately ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to dissolve Robart's order, but had not filed anything as of Saturday evening. It will go to a panel of judges who consider such emergency requests, and that decision could be crucial.

Court denies Justice request to immediately reinstate ban
https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-denies-justice-request-immediately-090952370.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court has denied the Justice Department's request for an immediate reinstatement of President Donald Trump's ban on certain travelers and all refugees.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco instead asked both the state of Washington and the Trump administration early Sunday to file more arguments by Monday afternoon.

 

[Buckleymanor]

That was in response to a report of a big mess, which I cleaned up, but forgot to delete my post after I deleted the posts. Thanks for reminding me. The rules for CE are here

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/

Are those the guidelines and these are the rules
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/general-discussion-rules.716057/

 

[mfb]

You ridicule it as a 'largely imaginary' threat. How much is real? Can you put a hard, absolute scientific number on what the threat is and what exactly constitutes appropriate action with zero human judgement involved?

Going by this list (but you can also take more extended lists)
2001: 3000 deaths, 6000 injured. 19 terrorists involved, none of them from the 7 banned countries.
After 2001, 90 people in the US died from islamistic terror, several more got injured. Most of the attacks came from US citizens, many of them born in the US. 0 of the deaths were connected to any person from the 7 countries. There was a single terror attack from a single person from one of the countries, injuring 11. At least according to the Wikipedia article, he probably became radicalized while in the US - better background checks wouldn't have changed anything.

Trump wants to reduce the risk of something that is basically non-existent. There are so many more important things he could do to reduce fatalities and injuries. And they don't require banning so many people. The ban harms the US economy a lot, and it harms the people affected even more. All that to reduce the number of terror deaths from those states from 0 to 0?

A program to reduce the US traffic deaths by just 1% would save 350 people per year.
A program to eradicate measles would have saved about 100 times more people than the current ban would have saved since 2000 (by injuries/cases of measles. Going by deaths it is 0 for terrorism to >=2 for measles).

 

[atyy]

It looks like a ban on Chinese immigrants is constitutional.

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

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2017/01/who-can-be-excluded-as-an-immigrant-to-the-united-states/

So perhaps the challenge will be executive versus legislative powers.