[rtpg]

- It was a ban of people from 7 muslim-dominated countries

- It excepts non-Muslims (religious test)

- It includes dual-citizens, and permanent residents. Even when you become the citizen of another country, you're still tainted according to the EO. Even when you've been vetted for the green card, you're still tainted.

- Guiliani is on the record that Trump said "I want a Muslim ban" and this was drafted to be the "most legal" way to do this, and a compromise from "ban all people from all muslim countries"

- There is no correlation between the list of countries and terrorist attacks on US soil. None of these country's citizens have contributed to attacks in over 40 years. Imagine England banning Irish citizens for the IRA.

Trump called for a Muslim ban over the campaign, asked for it as president, Guiliani gave what he thought to be a muslim ban, no other executive office seemed to give input. Not sure what else this could be but a muslim ban.

[birken]

In addition to the substance of the executive order, the implementation was chaotic and poorly planned. The spokesperson for the DHS said on Saturday the order "will bar green card holders" [1], then one day later the secretary of the DHS releases a statement effectively reversing that position with a very odd press release [2].

It is one thing to give the benefit of the doubt to an administration with a history of well thought out and well implemented policies. It is another to give the benefit of the doubt to an administration that didn't even have the foresight to consider how the ban would affect legal permanent residents and then took 2 days to make up their minds about it.

1: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-immigration-green...

2: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john...

[dingaling]

> Guiliani gave what he thought to be a muslim ban,

It's pretty poor as an effort if that's what it was meant to be. At least 70% of the World's Muslim population aren't banned.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_proje...

I'm not even a USian but I find myself posting on these threads because otherwise-rational people are posting irrational, inaccurate statements.

We wouldn't accept people saying 'withdrawing FTP access for kernel.org is a ban on FTP!!!'. So why don't we extend that rationality to other domains?

[vacri]

The BBC had an article pointing out that Trump has business interests in Egypt, Saudi, and Pakistan, and no business interests in any of the banned countries.

Also, when people talk about 'muslims' in these Anglo countries of ours, they're generally not imagining Indonesians or Malays. In the US it's middle-eastern muslims. In the UK, you can add south asians to that mix. Even here in Australia, 'muslim' doesn't evoke imagery of Indonesians, even though we're right next-door to them and have decent trade links. And before Boko Haram made the news, the general public had no idea that muslims lived in sub-saharan Africa, except maybe around the horn near the Arabian peninsula.

In short, it's an "anglo stereotype of muslims" ban, minus countries with good business links.

[masklinn]

> Imagine England banning Irish citizens for the IRA.

The IRA at least came from Ireland, that's like England banning Scots for the IRA.

[ominous]

> It excepts non-Muslims

Can I get a source on that? I just want to read about it, not doubting you.

[birken]

From the EA:

> "the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality"

In all of these 7 countries the majority religion is Islam, therefore by prioritizing refugee claims by people who practice a minority religion they are de-prioritizing claims by refugees solely due to being muslim.

-----

Also Donald Trump once released a press release stating:

> "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"

----

There is no reason to twist the reality of the situation. Donald Trump has talked many times about banning Muslims from entering the US. The text of the bill allows for Muslims to be banned or at least de-prioritized from being able to enter the country due to their religion. Why anybody would assume the main intention of the executive order is not to do the exact thing Donald Trump has talked about doing?

[redsummer]

Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'? What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

[danso]

It's not an either-or situation. The refugee program can accept people regardless of religion. The fact that many refugees are Muslim is a reflection of the statistical reality that many of the people afflicted are Muslim. To have a policy that favors the Christian minority makes it seem as if the Syrian/ISIS conflict is specifically one of Islam vs Christianity, which it is not.

[birken]

What evidence do you have that people of minority religions are being persecuted any more than people of the majority religions? In a country like Syria that is ~90% Muslim, what are the odds that all of the most persecuted people are in the 10% religious minority?

Why even flag them based on religion anyways if you are trying to help people who are being persecuted or murdered? What difference does it make?

During WW2, nobody should have been saying yes or no to Jews solely because they were Jews. It was because the were as a people being persecuted and murdered solely because of their religion that they should have been helped.

And again context is important here. The ban is coming from a person who has stated Muslims should be banned from entering the US because "there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population" and "it is obvious to anybody the hatred [of Americans by Muslims] is beyond comprehension". To ascribe motives to the ban that are counter to what the author of the ban has said again and again seems very dubious.

[redsummer]

There is plenty of evidence that Christians are being persecuted in Syria and other places, some even call it genocide: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/christians-fle...

US liberals have a blind-spot about it, because they have an image of Christian conservatives refusing to make gay wedding cakes in their head. So Christians can't possibly be persecuted! The usual US narcissism.

[masklinn]

> Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered?

You're apparently assuming people not from these minority religions aren't being murdered for some inane reason. How about prioritising people who are getting murdered regardless of the underlying reason?

> Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'?

Apparently you would, during WW2, say no to 7th day adventists, gays or socialists.

Incidentally your invocation of Jews in WWII is interesting given the administration's all-live-matter-ing of these exact same WWII jews on Remembrance Day, confirmed to have been intentional.

> What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

How about neither and judging each and every application instead of applying nonsensical blanket bans?

[redsummer]

> You're assuming people not from these minority religions aren't being murdered.

No I'm not.

> Apparently you would, during WW2, say no to 7th day adventists, gays or socialists.

No I wouldn't.

[sheepmullet]

1. They are prioritising persecuted minorities

and

2. Most of the worlds Muslims aren't in a banned country.

Stop trying to mislead.

[facepalm]

Well it says that people from a religion which has the majority in a country are probably not persecuted for their religion. That sounds lie a pretty reasonable assumption?

[redsummer]

I can't find any mention of Islam, Muslims, Christians etc in the order: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/donald-trump...

And are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'?

[pjc50]

Funny how you should use that example. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-a...

The "we'll turn away a whole group of refugees because they come from a war-torn area and some tiny fraction of them might be hostile" was used exactly during WW2 to say no to Jews, and the same argument is used now to turn away refugees from Syria.

[redsummer]

The opposite situation was the Interahamwe who had just committed genocide in Rwanda, and skipped over the border to Congo, only to be housed and fed by international aid organisations. They were fleeing, so they must be poor refugees!

[pfooti]

The Christian exemption in the EO is evidence the EO is using a religious test to exclude Muslims. Accepting refugees who are persecuted due to religion is quite different.

[redsummer]

What Christian exemption?

[pfooti]

Read the rest of this thread. Stop sealioning. Or read the EO where it calls out minority religions in countries with a majority Islamic population, coupled with Trump specifically saying he'd prioritize christians in the media.

[redsummer]

I guess you'll be happier if minority religions were murdered rather prioritized. "We can't prioritise Jews being murdered by Nazis - we must cover our eyes and ignore it"

Perhaps it's only Christians you want murdered.

[sleepychu]

>It excepts non-Muslims (religious test)

Source please?

[fnord123]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/trump_executive_o...

""" (b)Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. """

""" (e)Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship —and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States. """

I can't even find the EO on whitehouse.gov.