Hacker News Reader

Comment by grzm | Hacker News Reader

A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me.

I agree. Will you admit that sometimes people figure out ways to accomplish their goals under the cover of something else? That they know something won't be politically or legally feasible to do head on, but that they can accomplish another way if they don't express their actual intent explicitly? I think it's hard not to argue this happens. This type of accusation is thrown around all of the time from all sides.

In this particular instance, we've got explicit evidence of exactly that from one of the people who was involved in doing it. It's really hard to ignore this, or even deny the possibility without being disingenuous.

And this is ignoring the submitted article all-together.

View on HN

No I don't. I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it.

So they tried to take Obama what did in 2011, a few steps further and are rightfully taking flak for it, just like I think Obama should have gotten in 2011.

Again though a muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical.

Edit: Is there subtext I'm missing. Are you implying this is a slippery slope to a full muslim ban ?

I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it.

(Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him?)

Great. So we're supposed to be happy with a President who stretches the law as far as he can to do what he wants. This smacks of the "well, it was legal, so what's the problem?" argument we hear all too often. Just because you can figure out a way to do something legally doesn't mean it's the right or moral thing to do.

Response to the edit: Yes, I think there's something you're missing, and it's not subtext at all. Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals.

Trump is very good at not clearly expressing what he means. I'm not satisfied yet whether this is intended or not. If the latter, it's sowing a lot of needless confusion domestically and abroad. If on purpose, it makes it very difficult to trust him and know what his intent is, domestically and abroad.

Evidence on HN: Trump supporters are divided as to whether this is a Muslim ban or not. You'll find comments expressing either opinion.

There was double quotes in your article about Giuliani talking about the "muslim ban", so yes I don't know what that may mean or may not mean and I didn't feel like speculating.

Also I said I don't think it was the right thing to do.

But again I have to say a muslim ban that isn't based on religion really doesn't make sense. As for region based bans, those are not really new they've been done since Jimmy Carter.

I think the double quotes you're referring to are a quote for Giuliani quoting what Trump said to him. Compare with the "Put a commission together" quote-in-quote in the next line.

> Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him?

I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning. In same way that the media uses "Muslim ban" to refer to a moratorium on entry to citizens of certain majority-Muslim countries, given his sloppy approach to accurate speech, I can see that Trump might use these words in a way that isn't as sinister as some would take it.

Rather than speculating on his internal state of mind, I think the better debate is whether his actions are acceptable. That is, if we accept him at his word as to his intent, is it acceptable for the President to summarily close the American border to adherents of a certain religion if he believes that some small percentage of those who would come in intend to do us harm? I think there is sufficient disagreement about even this question that we don't need to consider dogwhistles.

Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals.

I haven't seen yet reason to believe that a full ban on Muslims is part of Trump's goal. Some of his supporters (possibly even some of this advisors) want to keep Muslims out of the US as a goal in itself, but I think Trump's actions so far are consistent with his stated intention to keep out those who wish to do intentional harm to the US. The question is how much damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal. If he thought there was a reliable way to distinguish between "good Allah-fearing Muslims" and "fundamentalist Islamic terrorists", I think he'd pursue it:

"The job of the president is to keep America safe. And that will always be my highest priority. We will do everything in our power to keep this scourge of terrorism out of our country. We're going to keep it out of our country. Just so you understand, people are pouring in from regions of the Middle East. We have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they are thinking, and we're going stop that dead, cold, flat."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1612/01/acd.01.html

> I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning.

This is not a very convincing line of argument. The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers. You can just watch the interview and find out that the quote is accurate and that Giuliani meant what he said, including "Muslim ban". There's quite some danger of hearing people say things that they mean to say, and just assuming that they couldn't possibly have said them because they sound odd to you. After all, what evidence would you find persuasive?

The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers.

I haven't watched the interview. What you say would imply that I'm wrong to think that it might be due to the reporter. Despite my clumsy phrasing, though, I was mostly thinking that Giuliani might have failed to mention Trump's implied "until we figure out a way that we can identify who's dangerous and who's not". For me, that clause makes a difference. Does it matter for you?

After all, what evidence would you find persuasive?

I'm not sure. Short of Trump explicitly saying "I don't think we should allow Muslims to live here", I'm not sure what single thing would convince me. A pile of lower quality evidence eventually would, but I don't think we are there yet. I tend to agree with what Scott Alexander writes here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo.... I don't think Trump is a subtle guy, and if he truly was personally prejudiced against Muslims (as opposed to concerned about terrorism) he would just say so explicitly.

Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning

It's from a televised interview. You're free to watch it yourself. There's no need to speculate on anyone's internal state of mind.

As for the possibility that Giuliani misspoke, everyone is aware that Muslim immigration is a highly contentious issue. This requires careful, considered speech. It was either intentional (and purposefully misleading if disingenuous) or sloppy. During the interview, the interviewer even prefaced the question asking if it was about religion, giving Giuliani an opportunity to state upfront that it wasn't about religion. The first thing he said was the quote above, that he was asked to implement a Muslim ban.

Looking back, the Trump campaign was all over the map with respect to the Muslim ban, which started out as

Donald J. Trump is calling for 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-...

This NBC piece has a collection of different positions (unfortunately without links to sources) that the Trump campaign has taken on the Muslim ban.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-dona...

It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion. He's also been known to flat-out lie without feeling a need to correct himself later. He's also been shown to be very good at saying what he thinks his supporters want to hear more brazenly than few other politicians I can remember.

At this point, I no longer think it's wise to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that we should also watch very closely the actual actions being taken.

Here are some past actions that I keep in mind when judging whether to give him the benefit of the doubt in doing the right and ethical thing:

- Trump University and its affiliated lawsuits

- Refusing to release his tax returns, a practice in transparency followed by presidential candidates for years

- Promising to "Drain the Swamp", yet his cabinet and other staff include a number of insiders, both government and corporate

- Refusing to adequately and cleanly distance himself from his investments upon attaining office

I commend your reasoned and considered approach, and encourage you to continue to do so. You've brought up concerns such as "The question is how hunch damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal", and are careful to avoid expressing your own opinion. I understand that as well, and appreciate that this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence. For my part, I'll continue to strive for reasoned consideration, but I'm no longer willing to err exclusively on the charitable side. I've seen enough that I no longer feel it's prudent to withhold judgement or grant him the benefit of the doubt.

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

So far as I can tell, this is still his view: our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens. I'm personally uncomfortable with this degree of nationalism, but I know that lots of Americans agree with this sentiment, and I don't know that it's unconstitutional for him to act in accordance with this belief.

It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion.

I agree, and this is why I'm dubious about media coverage that declares his position to be clear and unambiguous.

Here are some past actions that I keep in mind when judging whether to give him the benefit of the doubt in doing the right and ethical thing:

Those are all big warning flags to me as well. I particularly don't know what to make of the tax returns, since I presume (hope) they will be leaked and published at some point.

this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence.

For greater clarity, I strongly supported Sanders, and was distressed by the way he was treated by the press and the Democratic Party. I voted for Jill Stein, mostly in hope that greater support for 3rd parties will eventually help change America's two party landscape. I (still) generally prefer Trump to Clinton, but some of his recent actions make me scared that he might be too narcissistic to be an effective leader, although I can't tell how much is real and how much is media exaggeration. I still have hope that he's less likely to engage in wars of aggression than previous administrations.

For my part, I'll continue to strive for reasoned consideration, but I'm no longer willing to err exclusively on the charitable side. I've seen enough that I no longer feel it's prudent to withhold judgement or grant him the benefit of the doubt.

That makes sense, both for Trump and with regard to the mainstream media. Also, I think it might be a good idea to focus more attention on Steve Bannon, and less on Trump: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-to-make-o...

So far as I can tell, this is still his view

Which is in direct contradiction to the claims that it's not a Muslim ban or has a religious component. Whether or not this is the right thing to do, denial of the intent on the part of supporters or the administration bothers me.

our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens.

While I can sympathize, I'm also concerned with the personal liberty issues and apparent disregard for the rule of law, which seems threatened by the blocking of permanent residents and the firing of the AG when she questioned the constitutionality of the EO.

Sam Harris, who's been outspoken on what he considers the proper role of profiling and discussing honestly the threat of jihadist terrorism addressed the Executive Order in a blog post you may find interesting. Here's a quote:

I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-mu...

His take on the situation is one that results in him attracting flak many sides. In the post, he's pretty damning of what's been described as the "regressive left" as well.

Yes, thank you. For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list? I found myself wondering if it was consciously omitted with the intention of creating public support for adding it later.

And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry"? I'd like to see more of this, but I'm doubtful that the current political climate allows for it.

As counterpart, you might like this piece, in which a Russian-American tries to explain how his immigrant community ended up anti-Clinton rather than pro-Trump:

It is thus unsurprising that Trump’s insistent anti-war calls in his rallies and his defense of irredeemable but relatively stable regimes like Saddam Hussein’s resonated so much with my Philadelphia community. In my conversations with contractors, barbers, cooks and other hardworking immigrants, legitimate concerns over America’s actions overseas quickly polarized into a distrust of a “one-sided U.S. press.” Instead of a community backlash against Democrats, leftists or a potential female president, I saw an assault against a hawkish and “corrupt” bipartisan establishment, for which Hillary Clinton was its indomitable flag bearer. And though I noticed this often did not translate to passionate affection for Trump himself, his representation as a force against this status quo was enough to sway many Russian Americans toward the Republican’s cause.

https://medium.com/@Kareenmov/how-american-journalists-helpe...

For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list?

Not really, no. I think the way the EO has been handled overall has made it much more difficult than necessary. I'm sure that under the best circumstances there would have been some resistance, but as it's happened, it looks like it's been executed for maximum controversial effect, and likely intentionally.

And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism … without lapsing into bigotry"?

I agree with you that this is difficult. For one, it requires quite a bit of nuance, which is difficult to do in public messaging, but I think a form of it can. In particular, making a clear distinction between Muslim and Islamism/jihadism I think is one that can be conveyed. There are some parallels that can be drawn with respect to Christianity in the US. It's still tough, though, given how sensitive issues surrounding religion are. That said, I think it might be important to try, because we're at a stalemate politically around this issue. I'm not convinced Trump is one who's able or willing to convey this message. The Executive Order hasn't been handled with much nuance or care.

The reform within Islam portion is especially hard to discuss for those outside the religion, just as it would be for any outsider to approach a group and say "hey, you gotta fix this problem your group has". Even supporting those within the group can result in those insiders being viewed with suspicion. Groups like the Quilliam Foundation are trying to do that.

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

Thanks for the link to the Kareenmov piece. How Trump got framed as an anti-war candidate has been fascinating. Certainly Clinton has been a hawk for a long time. But some of the things Trump said during the campaign with respect to ISIS can't be interpreted as anti-war.

———

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11...

"I will also quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one — and I mean, no one — will mess with us"

———

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-o...

“I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields. I wouldn’t send many troops because you won’t need them by the time I’m finished.”

———

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-...

“We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS,” Trump said. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000 [troops].”

———

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/donald-trump-mike-pen...

"We're going to declare war against ISIS. We have to wipe out ISIS"

———

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

"Immediately after taking office, I will ask my generals to present to me a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.

This will require military warfare, but also cyber warfare, financial warfare, and ideological warfare"

———

Anyway, that's getting well off topic now. Thanks for the civil, reasoned discussion. I appreciate it.

I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this false equivalence too. Obama is responsible for (I think twice) temporarily halting refugees from Iraq and a list of other countries.

What Trump did included:

* Refusing to honor green cards from nationals of those countries, deliberately, apparently at the behest of Steve Bannon.

* Refusing temporary visitor visas to nationals of those countries.

* Refusing to honor visas already provided, in multiple cases resulting in the detention and threatened deportation of children under the age of 6.

* Cutting in half the number of refugees we accept from any country.

* Indefinitely ending the refugee program for Syrian nationals, the place in the world in the most dire need of refugee assistance.

* Shutting down significant parts of the entire refugee program for several months.

It is a right-wing talking point that Trump did something Obama did and is taking flak over it for partisan reasons. That is not what is happening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com