[levlaz]

> Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured.

Who is saying that this is acceptable?

> 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries

I think the key issue here is that this ban includes valid Green Card holders and people who have Visas. This means that they have already spent up to two years being vetted. This policy makes no sense.

If the order was just "stop issuing visas", I don't think that there would have been such an uproar.

[SBCRec]

I believe he is referring to the global hate train (media hype?) being run on Trump, magnitudes higher than any directed at the previous administrations responsible for those actions.

edit: Are military actions against these countries targeting Muslim communities worse than removing immigration privileges of Muslim communities? I dunno how to approach this question...

[polymatter]

The media was waiting for anything to crucify Trump. He has done nothing but stoke them. He already has been demonized as a white supremisist. The narrative "Trump will ban all Muslims and turn the US into a fascist state" was already on the press, they just needed an excuse to print it.

And there are many who not only disagree with Trump, but are appalled at his persona. There was that big march and that whole "Not my president" thing. They are already primed to believe that Trump will attempt to turn the US into a fascist state. In that light they say this as Step 1 of the "US turns fascist" and they are reacting as though he is suggesting Step 10 Imprisoning political opponents. Because they "see" the path and are doing everything they can to stop it.

[masklinn]

> The media was waiting for anything to crucify Trump. He has done nothing but stoke them. He already has been demonized as a white supremisist. The narrative "Trump will ban all Muslims and turn the US into a fascist state" was already on the press, they just needed an excuse to print it.

Of course it helps that "a muslim ban" is quite literally what Trump asked for according to Rudy Giuliani:

> So when he first announced it he said “Muslim ban.” He called me up, he said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together with judge Mukasey [Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge], with congressman McCaul [Texas Rep. Michael McCaul], Pete King [New York Rep. Peter King], a whole group of other very expert lawyers on this, and what we did is we focused on, instead of religion, danger—areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion, it’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

[SBCRec]

Yeah it is interesting, to me it seems like trump and the protesters are both coming from a place of fear and are trying to prevent something from happening, whether that is terrorist attack on US soil, or Trump turning the US into a fascist state.

Very interesting

[vidarh]

Obama got somewhat of a free pass for simply not being quite as bad as Bush. With Trump we're seeing indications of things getting substantially worse than Bush. That is why.

People outside the US are used to the US being far to our right, and it being relatively futile to do more than complain about these things. But Trump is seriously scaring people.

[ctack]

Well put. I wonder if this ban would have been as strongly challenged by the media if it was someone else proposing it.

[kevingadd]

Considering the huge parade of Republican and Democrat politicians that condemned the very idea over the last year, what do you think?

[levlaz]

Yeah that makes a lot of sense actually.

[moultano]

The people he's targeting now are Americans, which for better or worse people are much less willing to tolerate. Green card and visa holders are Americans.

[kranner]

I would have thought one is not American until one is a citizen.

[moultano]

That's not how Americans view it. The notion of belonging to a nation is very different in the New World, as best exemplified by this map. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jus_soli_world.svg...

[kranner]

This map doesn't say anything about visa holders and green card holders. It is only relevant for persons born in the country, which I'm assuming most visa/green card holders aren't.

[moultano]

It was intended to convey the difference in attitudes, not relevant law.

[dingaling]

Visa holders are not necessarily "Americans". For example holders of G-{1-4} Visas from the proscribed countries are not affected by the ban and remain foreign nationals.

[coldtea]

>Who is saying that this is acceptable?

A few, but this is irrelevant to the parent's point.

Which is that whether people say it is acceptable or not, much fewer numbers complained about it when other administrations where doing it, and much less visibly than people do today .

Which gives one the impression that if in 2 or 4 years some democrat or another republican gets into office and does the same or worse, things will be silent again (except for few consistent protestors), and hence that it's all about ousting Trump rather than justice in general.

Case in point: Obama halted people coming in from Iran in 2011 (for 6 months) and nobody said much of anything. Or how about this: Trump said he'll get rid of 3 million illegal immigrants and all went crazy. Well, Obama has the record thus far with 2.5 million deportations, but nobody seemed to care back then.

[geff82]

Stopping issuing visas in itself would be bad for US reputation. I know many Iranians who really work hard to get a visa for the USA to visit the country they long for at least once in their life. As there is no US embassy in Iran (for good reasons, by the way), they usually have to travel to Turkey at least twice. One couple I know came to Germany for two weeks just to get their visa from the American consulate here. They were so freaking happy to visit the USA for two weeks (they just got home a week before inauguration).

[hueving]

>As there is no US embassy in Iran (for good reasons, by the way),

Yeah, the Iranian government tends to get a little "clingy" with US citizens that have good leverage power for bargaining.

[levlaz]

Totally agree that it is not the right move. But that policy at least would not have been so strongly contended.