[dredmorbius]

No. No it is not.

"Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’"

“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] 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.'"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI

[wingerlang]

Fair enough, but it is still not a literal ban is it? I repeat my statement as a question: as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia, you can still enter US - right?

[thecopy]

Yes, you can. Trump activated a policy invented and signed into law by Obama, he did not choose the countries himself.

[MagnumOpus]

Sorry, you fell for an "alternative fact".

[lifty]

Do you know where this "alternative fact" was published first and how it came into existence? And does it have any root in reality or is it totally manufactured? Would like to understand the phenomenon better.

[aniforprez]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adm...

Obama had an act in place to make it difficult for people fro these countries or who had visited these countries to get a visa. Trump expanded the "getting a visa should be difficult" part to "let's ban people from these countries regardless of if they already have Green Cards or dual citizenships".

Obama's act, though again not including countries funding and harboring terrorists, only made it difficult to get a visa which sort of makes sense but is still stupid because it didn't include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. the ACLU protested this act but it was passed through Congress anyway

[venomsnake]

Still it is not. Because when you leave out China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Germany, Turkey, UK, France ... which each have a lot of Muslims there whether in relative or absolute terms.

The ban is only for arabs in very unstable countries and Iran. There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war and Iran is adversary, so there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all.

They way I see it there is no fundamental right of foreigners to enter US. It is a privilege given by the discretion of the executive branch.

[pg314]

> There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war

There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one. I do not know how a nation where 70% of the population calls itself christian could turn away refugees from war-torn countries.

> there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all.

Top US universities and tech firms beg to differ. The US got the best universities and leading tech firms exactly because of immigrants. Paul Graham's essay about this is interesting: http://paulgraham.com/95.html

[imron]

> There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one

Well, if we're going all humanitarian, the humanitarian thing to do would be to stop bombing these countries in the first place.

[pg314]

I agree that another humanitarian thing to do would be to stop bombing/droning other countries.

But you are presenting it as if you only get to do one humanitarian thing. That is incorrect. You can do both.

If you are trying to argue that a previous president's mistakes are a justification for this president's mistakes, I disagree.

[imron]

I am not trying to argue that, I am merely angry that the people protesting today were not protesting at the far worse things that happened before and that ultimately led to the situation we are in now. Your comment got caught in the crossfire of that anger.

[VLM]

What about the humanitarian goal of protecting your own people, your own family, your own culture? Surely they should come first before an abstract "other". Who is willing to kill a close family member to make space for a refugee?

[venomsnake]

In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason.

Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might.

It all depends on the perspective in which you view the other countries.

[pg314]

> In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason.

You're moving the goalposts. First you say there is no good reason, then you reframe it 'in the world of realpolitik'. If you want to support your original assertion, you need to argue why realpolitik is the only valid worldview.

> Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might.

Again, you're moving the goalposts by adding if we define US interest as unchallenged US might and by adding to further your national interest.

Even if you accept those premises, your conclusion would need more arguments. Educating citizens of a country might further the US national interest if they stay in the US after their studies or return to their country and oppose their leadership.

[venomsnake]

The reapolitik is the only valid view in international relations (outside of one pole empire, but it is impossible on the current scale of the planet with current state). We live in realpolitik world currently - case in point Saudi Arabia on the human rights council. This is possible only in realpolitik world. In any other type of world relations it will be impossible.

Also - any US leaning dictator getting a pass. Like Saddam, Noriega, Pinochett. Which met their demise after refusing to obey their CIA overlords.

For Iran - if Iran us enemy - which the current administration thinks so, giving their citizens education is bad unless you ban them from exiting US after getting said education. And prevent them from taking the know how there.

If Iranian people had the means to overthrow the theocracy they would have already done it.

[wan23]

There may not be a fundamental right, but there are some very practical reasons to allow permanent residents and people who already hold valid visas to enter the country. Those documents are very difficult to obtain, often requiring sponsorship by an American corporation that would presumably be hurt by having their workers turned away at the border with no warning. Further these documents represent promises made by the American people to these individuals, who enter into leases, buy property, open gym memberships and generally build lives in the United States because they had been previously granted permission to stay for a time. What does it say about us that a change in leadership might suddenly invalidate promises previously made by the government for no apparent reason? Given such uncertainty why should anyone invest anything into this country?