I don't see the point of these orders.
Muslim immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives.
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf
[2] https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-sa...
Muslim immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives.
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf
[2] https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-sa...
If you look at the mass casualty incidents since 9/11, only at best ~50% of them were instigated by immigrants, let alone Muslim immigrants. A leaked DHS report apparently concludes that even most of those immigrants who did commit terrorism were radicalized post-entry, although this should have been the reasonable assumption of anyone who cast a cursory glance at the evidence.
The exclusion of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Pakistan, and now Iraq, as well as the inclusion of Iran on the list (Iran's support of terrorism is pretty much limited to proxies whose targets are limited to Middle Eastern governments (including Israel) and have no inclination to carry out attacks in the US or Europe) indicate that the set of targets is chosen less for which countries are liable to produce terrorists and more for which countries the US government doesn't like.
As I've pointed out in the past, the number of terrorists who might be stopped by a travel ban like this is probably 0 and maybe as high as 2. The number of people for whom this would be the tipping point in their radicalization is probably between 0 and 10. This may create more terrorism than it catches.
Thing is, we'll probably never know. Will that information ever be shared with the public? How many people were prevented from entering the US over the past 8 years for "ties to terrorist organizations?" I have no idea.
It happened in early 2016 to Indian students.
http://fusion.net/story/272029/indian-students-denied-entry-...
Happened in mid 2016 to Syrian refugees.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/08/09/substantial...
A reported 2015 rise in Muslims being denied entry
http://www.dlgvisablog.com/blog/2015/12/29/us-increasingly-d...
But without news reports or blog articles, how are we to ever know that X number of travelers were denied entry? We can say it's probably between 0-2, but there's no evidence to back that up and I don't know how we even begin to search for the evidence other than heavily redacted FOIA requests.
But I've been really giving thought to what I can do as an average citizen to make the slightest change in public policy.
Students, family members, and others following the rules are the targets. The goal is to increase hassle, expense, uncertainty and humiliation for Certain Visitors in order to have less of them.
(Edit: That's assuming OP meant terrorist incidents. MCIs are so common that immigrants would be implicated in <1% of them.)
2) Eventually people will be tired of outrage in general, at which point the executive branch can do whatever it wants.
Trump has has ended reality; words have no meaning now, and numbers doesn't have meaning either.
[1] https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7470/germany-migrants-cri...
That's a non-sequitur, as this order isn't targeted at "Muslim immigrants". Furthermore, the categories "Muslim immigrants" and "natives" both contain substructure. That means that a simple comparison between the two can be misleading.
Please note I'm merely pointing out a flaw in your argument, and not taking a side on whether the order is a good or bad idea.
Not sure whether you're acting naive to prove a point, but the countries represented aren't majority Muslim by accident - they were picked for a specific reason. Not to mention, Trump himself alluded to a "Muslim Ban" with a similar structure before, as did multiple aides. He's run on a platform of xenophobia. It's not a stretch whatsoever to make that point - everyone understands why the poster is labelling it that way.
The implication that the person that posted is injecting ideology into that comment is ironic, since willfully choosing to ignore the political context of the ban is just as bad.
> the categories "Muslim immigrants" and "natives" both contain substructure
Yes, all language does.
>not taking a side on whether the order is a good or bad idea
You're taking a side by turning a blind eye to the ideological ramifications and context of the ban. "I'm just playing devil's advocate" is always problematic because it purports that injecting something dangerous like this into the conversation "doesn't count".
The people doing this think it qualifies, and this is a case where we should probably believe them.
But he didn't...
Instead, he or his team chose to use a list of seven high-risk or non-cooperative nations drawn-up by the DHS over a year ago for the purpose of suspending Visa-waiver travel. That affected ~20% of the Word's Muslim population.
1. Trump talked a lot about banning Muslims from the US.
2. Giuliani said the first travel ban was what came out of Trump asking him to implement the "Muslim ban" legally.
3. Neither the first one nor this new one is a very effective Muslim ban.
What are we to conclude from these facts?
We could conclude that, despite the insistence of Trump that he was going to implement such a ban, and a Trump insider saying that the first order was their first attempt at it, that order was not in fact intended as a Muslim ban.
Or we could conclude that it was intended as a Muslim ban, and the people responsible either don't understand that Muslims and Arabs aren't the same thing, understand but don't care because it's pandering to their supporters, or understand and see it only a first step in a process of getting a full ban in place.
Given how everyone in this circus has behaved so far, my money is firmly on door #2.
My point was that there are 50 Muslim-majority countries. So if you want to argue against the ban, argue that visitors / immigrants from those countries commit less crime than "natives", rather than arguing that Muslim immigrants in general commit less crime than natives.
>> the categories "Muslim immigrants" and "natives" both contain substructure > Yes, all language does.
The point here being that different "native" demographic groups commit crimes at different rates; and I'm guessing it's likely that different "Muslim" immigration groups commit crimes at different rates. e.g. approximately 1% of Chechen immigrants to the USA are terrorist bombers.
These are are the countries where the US is fighting wars against ISIS, and Iran.
I don't support the ban, but I can see the point of being careful about accepting immigrants from areas with active enemy armies.
I point this out strictly as a response to your reading of the GP's post, not as support of the travel ban.
The particular language of this order may not be. But we've learned to take Trump "seriously, not literally."
In that light, the above quote is a falsehood.