[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_proje...
[0]https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...
It neither effects all Muslims nor (since it includes a temporary complete ban on all refugees) only Muslims, but it's still overtly targeted first and foremost at Muslims.
The DHS list of countries on that waiver ban is indeed the same as those listed in the Executive Order. I haven't seen a reference that this list was indeed the basis for the countries listed in the Executive Order. If you know of one, please do share. I'm happy to be corrected.
Guiliani is widely reported in an interview on Fox News just yesterday to have confirmed that at least initially the goal was to create a Muslim ban:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...
I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.
"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"
Giuliani said he then put together a commission that included lawmakers and expert lawyers. "And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger," Giuliani said.
"The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."
Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."
Perhaps the claim that resulting Executive Order is indeed purely based on risk assessment is true. I think reasonable people can understandably question whether this is indeed the case. To deny that it at least initially was motivated by the desire to create a Muslim ban is disingenuous at best. Accusing people of relying on "fake news" if they bring this up is clearly unfair.
Obama has been bombing these countries killing innocent people and now people are upset that Trump doesn't let army age men to come from these countries while he is taking care of the terrorist Obamas action created? Where were the marches against Obamas warmongering policies?
The fact that people didn't protest more about Obama is a separate argument. The fact that Bush invaded Iraq is a separate argument. The fact that the US supported the mujahideen during the Soviet Afghan war is a separate argument. The fact that the US helped overthrow the Iranian government and install the Shah in 1953 is a separate argument. The fact that European powers divvied up the Middle East following World War I is a separate argument. Want to go back to the Crusades? Abraham?
Or you can tie them all together. They're all ultimately related. Which do you want? Where do you want to draw the line? What do you want to take responsibility for? Drawing in all manner of related topics doesn't help us move forward. I don't think any of that is useful.
What people are discussing now, today, is Trump's Executive Order, and what to do about it now.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executi...
Trump’s campaign in 2015 said it wanted “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rudy-giuliani-trump...
You find a list of countries banned on the visa waiver program made by the previous administration, and it covers many Muslim nations that are in the international spotlight right now. They're hot topics and it fits your criteria well. (Also they conveniently don't intersect with your business interests, so that's another plus.) You ignore Indonesia and India because they aren't in the news for terrorism, so it doesn't fit your narrative. Now you can get away with banning these "previously chosen" countries, by saying it's for national security, while you wink to your more explicitly racist supporters. You achieved their racist goal, de-facto, while having a non-racist "legitimate" excuse.
This is how institutional racism works. You have a racist goal in mind, and you implement it through actions that are under the guise of something more reasonable. It has the same effect as if you just made some overtly racist policy, but you can do it legally and with plausible deniability.
Also, if it helps, Rudy Giuliani said on national TV that Trump told him to do literally exactly this.
By your logic, the ban will not be temporary. Correct?