DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected.
I think you're being flagged for being needlessly argumentative and uncivil.
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:
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.
Giuliani 'It's based substantial on evidence people are sending terrorist into our country'[0]. If christian terrorist would be coming in to US with evil intention from certain countries I don't think anyone would oppose them being banned temporarily while their organisation is taken care of. Trump is looking to attack ISIS in the next 30 days if someone wasn't paying attention and wants to lower risk of attacks happening by people coming in. It's easy to misrepresent what someone is saying as we have seen the last year.
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?
You're cherry-picking one quote from Giuliani rather than looking at the larger conversation he had during the Fox News interview. And then shifting the discussion to Obama.
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.
Again, semantics. It's being called a Muslim ban because it _only_ affects Muslims. Sure, it doesn't affect _all_ Muslims, but it still singles out one religious group.
It's being called a Muslim ban because Trump called for a Muslim ban, shifted the definition many times, and then issued this order with similar justification and overlapping provisions to many versions (though not identical to any version) of the Muslim ban.
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.
One person said they were implementing a Muslim ban, and the other... well, he didn't (not to mention his policy was materially different from the current one). I don't need to read fake news to understand the difference.
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.