> I do not, honestly, think you are arguing in good faith.
The majority of Muslim countries are not in those areas. There are muslim countries in Southeast Asia, West Africa, and Central Asia. You're arguing from a place of ignorance.
The top muslim countries are Indonesia (12% of muslims), India and Pakistan (11% each), Bangladesh (9%). Those four countries account for 53% of the muslim population. The arab countries (not all of which were banned) only account for 20%. Thus, the vast majority of muslims are still able to enter the United States. Calling this policy a muslim ban is like calling the EU policy of requiring Visas for most countries a non-white screening program.
Moreover, both venezuela and North Korea are banned, both of which have few muslims. Is this also a Christian / Buddhist / atheist ban now?
The five majority muslim countries that were banned (Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya) account for 7.5% of the Muslim population. Syria at least also has a sizeable non-Muslim population.
> It's telling, I think, that you made this about the current President and his predecessor, and that your argument that the Muslim ban wasn't really white nationalist is because the Muslim ban was really a... ah yes:
And what exactly is it telling of? An avoidance of hyperbole when it comes to politics?