[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2017/01/28/peter-thiel-s...
[2] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...
If the government wants to do some bad or unethical, they won't be straight about it. They will use euphemisms and "newspeak" to disguise their intentions (e.g. "enhanced interrogation").
It's akin to parallel construction. Start with the party that is presumed guilty, then work backwards to change your actions and arguments so that you can still persecute the party but without obviously breaking any laws.
* Indonesia 204,847,000 (87.2%)
* Pakistan 178,097,000 (96.4%)
* India 172,245,158 (14.2%)
* Bangladesh 145,312,000 (90%)
* Nigeria 75,728,000 (47.9%)
If Indonesia suddenly became plagued by radical Islamic terrorism then it would be on the list too.
The seven countries targeted by the immigration ban have been either failed states or antagonistic to the US for the past 30 years, it is quite plain to say that it makes sense for Trump's companies -- and various other companies across a wide swath of industries -- to refrain from conducting business there. To say that other Muslim-majority countries aren't on the list due to conflict of interest is to deny this simple logic.
Plenty of other Muslim-majority countries have kept a lid on their populace by maintaining adequate internal security within their borders and providing valuable counter-terrorism intelligence to to the US, meanwhile the seven "countries of concern" have not.
[1] https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e...
2. Pakistan = the only way US troops can get into Afghanistan.
Looking for "justice" in US foreign policy (or any country's foreign policy) is naive.
Edit: I'm not making comments about Trump's actions (specifically, I'm not defending what he did). As for whether this particular list stands up to scrutiny, that question should have been asked a long time ago.
What happened was Obama signed the bill imposing exceptions to the Visa Waiver Program in December 2015, and then his own DHS added the current list of middle eastern nations in February 2016.
It is the most tenuous argument to act like that was the work of the GOP.
Bannon is a genius. The fact that he can co-opt partisans in the deflection of criticism with facile ideas like "Obama did it" is terrifying.
That was taken directly from a bill Hillary Clinton co-sponsored years earlier (though obviously with far less context or nuance).
They're very mindful to use some sort of liberal precedent when fanning their flames, giving them (and their flock) plenty of retaliatory talking points.
One reason this is interesting is that there there were some very widely-circulated - and of course false - claims on social media that the choice of countries was somehow influenced by Trump's business interests, and that the fact no-one from countries on the list had killed in the US proved Trump was inspired by racism or even an outright fascist. https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/825473088758374400 was typical of the genre. Snopes decided to show an uncharacteristic lack of interest in online rumours by not mentioning them. Naturally, the same people who were spreading those claims are now spreading the debunkings about how no, Trump's ban is nothing like Obama's.
I think you're hearing echoes in your "sound mind."
Six of the seven countries are failed states and the other openly calls for the US' destruction.
That's your definition of "keeping a lid" and "maintaining internal security"?
Maybe somebody should ask Obama's DHS head?
It's entirely possible for a leader to be simultaneously corrupt and motivated by hate.
so its places where there are currently insurgent wars going on
or places that are considered state sponsors of terrorism
------
both situations complicate the ability to do background checks,
neither situation applies to most of the countries brought up when wondering why those places were left off the list
But considering the existing bullshit rollercoaster, you ask why MORE countries weren't banned ?
This video presents all points of hypocrisy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187
See section (12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern
It is unbelievable how bad the media is now at doing their job of informing the public.
Your ad hominem attacks are not welcome here.
And if that's true, either the DHS is doing a spectacularly awful job, or we're not hearing the full story of what they did and did not recommend.
Of the 7 nations on the list, Iran has the only functioning government, but is a huge state sponsor of terrorism against our allies in the region and we are not allied with them.
To claim this is a bigoted move by Trump because of Islam is a simple and narrow minded view and shows a clear lack of factual information and first rate thinking.
9/11 commission report documented the terrorists meeting with Saudi intelligence officers on US soil and they were partly funded by Saudi royalty. Also lets look at Pakistan. They were harboring Osama Bin Laden.
We deal with a lot of countries around the world that do things we don't like, we don't have to like it, but diplomacy and politics are messy and require compromise in situations where it's a better choice versus the alternative.
The nations on the list have vast regions of lawlessness and they've lost control of their populations.
Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait etc. have functioning governments that are very actively engaged against terrorism.
Remember that ISIS/AlQueda wants to take out the House of Saud before they go after the USA :)
The 'Islamic countries not on the list' are much more afraid of terrorism than the US is.
Just today a Saudi ship was hit by a missile from Iranian backed terrorists in Yemen, off the coast.
The only country that is on the list that has a 'sound government' is Iran - but they are state-sponsors of terror, and are actively trying to destabilize the region - and pushing hard to topple Saudi, as well as supporting Assad. I suggest that one is a little more political because Iran does not itself produce terrorists of the kind we are afraid are going to come and 'bomb America'.
I don't agree with Trumps policy - but 'the list' is quite rational.
They were the homes for Osama bin Laden(s), weren't they?
(1) this could be just a trial balloon
(2) there are no other war torn countries on the list (and there are many)
(3) many of the stated reasons for this ban appear to be total nonsense, so people will start looking for alternative explanations.
Trump tried to find a way to institute this ban such that it wasn't blatantly a muslim ban. He decided that if he used a country list from the Obama administration, he could use that as a defense. This is generally how people try to create racist laws in modern times. The Voting Rights Act wasn't created because states created laws saying "minorities should be discouraged from voting". It was created because politicians came up with laws that targeted minorities without explicitly naming them.
Thiel went to Stanford Law, he knows this, he is just trying to recover because he still doesn't know what to do about the fact that Trump was talking literally, despite Thiel's insistence repeatedly that Trump was talking symbolically. If this isn't a muslim ban, Thiel can continue to insist that Trump's promise of such a ban was not literal.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
The "logic" for the countries selected is that they were already "countries of concern." [1] However, the executive order is written in such a way as to allow religious minorities in, even though they're from a "country of concern." The implication is that what makes the countries, "of concern," is their Muslim majorities. Otherwise, it would be unsafe to let in other religious groups as well.
There are all kinds of explanations for this, of course. The administration may have wanted to ban everyone, but didn't want the heat from the Christian right. They may have wanted to specify Christians instead of minorities, but they would look even more anti-semitic than they already do [2]. They may have written a sloppy executive order and not forseen how it would play.
They may also have used a list of countries from the Obama era as cover and written the order such that it would focus on Muslims with plausible deniability about that focus. They've already said they can add more countries to the list.
I think pointing out that the executive order could have banned more Muslims is worth saying but somewhat misses the point. The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers. The fact that most Muslims can still get to the US does not change the nature of the order.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adminis... [2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/team_trump...
I think it would be more exact to say that the writers believe some self-identified Muslims are sufficiently dangerous that it justifies temporarily banning anyone associated with certain Muslim-majority countries from coming into the US until we can distinguish those who wish to cause harm from those who do not. And since it's difficult to imagine how one could ever distinguish between these groups perfectly, and since other countries can be added to the list, it seems possible that this will lead to a permanent ban on Muslims entering the US.
I find their precept reasonable: there are individuals from these countries who claim to be Muslim and who intend to enter the US and cause us harm --- possibly because we bombed their cousin's wedding, killing half their relatives and maiming half the rest. It seems likely that our current approach to immigration is not sufficient to prevent these harmful individuals from entering the US.
So what should we do? Personally, I think we should stop killing people with drones, since I can't see how this is actually helping the situation. But given that previous administrations have killed a lot of people, and given that some of their surviving relatives are likely to seek revenge, is there anything we can do to protect ourselves? Or is the threat overblown, and any attempt at mitigation is worse than the damage the these (potentially non-existent) terrorists can do to us?
If someone wishes to come to the US, we'll need to ask if they're a religious minority. I'm sure that anyone wishing to attack the US (Muslim or otherwise) would be willing to lie to the US so they appear to fit the requirements.
To deal with that possiblitiy, the US would have to do research on that person's background. If it can conclude with satisfaction they actually are of that religion, they can come. Otherwise, the US denies the application with "not enough evidence."
If the US can do the research on their religious background, why can't the US do research on their political affiliations? On their views on the US?
Even from a, "damn the morals, let's be practical," perspective religious belief strikes me as a very weak indicator. Its confounded by all kinds of personal factors. Especially in muslim majority nations.
To your question: A mix of both. I think one of the "disadvantages" of a free society is that it's easier to commit terrorism. Yet we have few attacks. I think it's sensible to check that someone is not an active member of a group that wishes a country harm, but I think we need to consider the cost in lives to that filtering. If we double the time spent checking someone's background and they die after the halfway point, is that moral? If we half the number of people we can process to lower the risks, is that moral?
If nothing else, I think the executive order is totally divorced from a reasonable and adult conversation about risk and morality.
Did you really mean to say that?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...
1/28/16/ Spicer: “Trump is doing what he said he would do”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316730-spicer-tru...
(also, Trump retweeting various people saying he's keeping all his promises in this regard)
1/29/16 Trump: “This is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.”
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/29/14432362/tr...
Sure, it's not targeted at Muslims, it's a ban for people from certain Muslim-majority countries with exceptions for non-Muslims.
And then you have Giuliani saying Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban legally, and Flynn Jr. calling it a necessary Muslim ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-g-flynn-delete...
Gonna go out on a limb and say anyone 'of sound mind' as you say would say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
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. [...]
It's entirely reasonable to consider a politician's stated aspirations as well as their more limited actions in office, since the latter are often incremental steps towards a larger goal.
Please don't argue but trying to bury people in irrelevant facts. That tactic is called a Gish Gallop and makes you look like you're arguing in bad faith. Considering the administration's on-again off-again relationship with basic concepts of truth and fact, nitpicking arguments are best avoided.
It cannot be that the administration gets to decide when to cite facts and figures or when to make sweeping and inaccurate generalizations; if critics are to be held to a different standard of truth from the administration, then we have a government that asserts exclusive domain over the notion of truth itself. Are you sure that's something you want to support?
What do you feel about the argument that we've "figured out" that Muslims coming from these larger countries are not a significant threat, but that our visa and refugee policies are not yet sufficiently reliable for us to say this about the countries that we've recently been bombing?
Do you think there is a legitimate threat, but the measures in the executive order are insufficient to prevent it? That there is a threat, but that there are no positive steps we can take to mitigate it? That the best way of countering the threat is to embrace potentially dangerous immigrants from these countries? Or that there is no particular threat and there is no need to change the current system?
If you don't mind legal reading, most large cities have law libraries and most large law libraries keep copies of Bender's Immigration bulletin or Interpreter Releases, two professional journals which chronicle legal proceedings in immigration cases. You may find it instructive to study some in order to get a better idea of the quality and weight of evidence offered in such proceedings.
Our Visa and refugee policies are the product of over a century of operational and historical experience. It's not as if we've never been faced with such complexities before and can't figure out where to begin. The claim that we can't figure this out right now is literally an appeal to ignorance. The reality is that we have tough and elaborate screening procedures in place already, and abundant data on the risk factors.