[facepalm]

I have high respect for CodingHorror, which is why I am confused about some of his claims.

Perhaps HN can help me understand a few things:

- why do people claim it is a muslim ban, when really it seems to be a ban on countries that the US is fighting a war with (except Iran)? Whether there is a causality between "at war with the US" and "Muslim" seems to be another question?

- what is the proper US stance on Immigration? Is the "good" line that there should be no borders at all, and everybody should be able to enter at will? Because the wall, crazy as it sounds, seems to be aimed at illegal immigration. So why not fight for better immigration laws, rather than against the wall?

I have read the memes about Jews who were denied entry to the US and then died in the Holocaust. Fair enough, and as a German, I am actually extra concerned about that. I was always very pro asylum laws, because I thought what if one day there is no US to flee to, if shit hits the fan? Still, the examples also show that immigration to the US was never as open as people seem to think.

I am not sure if the temporary ban or the wall are useful measures - I am not a fan of Trump's politics as such (not all of it anyway). But I still think criticism should be reasonable. It seems reasonable for example to ban people from a country you are at war with from entering. Maybe people are just in denial about being at war? It is only droning, not real war? To be honest it reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton not having sex.

I am not sure illegal immigrants from Mexico are hurting the US - maybe they benefit everyone by providing cheap labor. But then, why not change the immigration laws, rather than pound on an arbitrary measure for enforcing the existing laws?

[whorleater]

> why do people claim it is a muslim ban, when really it seems to be a ban on countries that the US is fighting a war with (except Iran)? Whether there is a causality between "at war with the US" and "Muslim" seems to be another question?

Because it omits Christians from the ban? Because it bans legal visa holders and (initially) permanent residents, who, I repeat, went through the immigration process legally and now are suddenly banned based on the country of their origin? Because, Rudy Giuliani, the White House Adviser, literally admitted on live television that Trump tasked him to find a legal version of a "muslim ban"? How else are you supposed to see it, "it's not a muslim ban, it's just a ban on people who happen to be muslim specifically because their religion"?

[facepalm]

Perhaps the US is at war with Muslim groups in those countries, so it makes sense to (temporarily) ban Muslims? But how do they make sure someone is really a Christian?

Also the ban seems temporary to give them time to improve security checks.

Not saying it was handled well, but perhaps there is no other sensible way to do it? If you announce it beforehand, people you want to filter out will just rush to get through the door?

As for the Giuliani leak, I don't know - why not stick to actual policies, rather than rumors?

[whorleater]

> Perhaps the US is at war with Muslim groups in those countries, so it makes sense to (temporarily) ban Muslims? But how do they make sure someone is really a Christian?

That's the entire point, enforcing religious tests is absurd.

> Not saying it was handled well, but perhaps there is no other sensible way to do it? If you announce it beforehand, people you want to filter out will just rush to get through the door?

Yes, shocking enough, due process is necessary. And perhaps we don't grant visas and green cards to people who are considered dangerous then?

> As for the Giuliani leak, I don't know - why not stick to actual policies, rather than rumors?:

I'm fairly certain you're gaslighting at this point, but you can hear from Giuliani on live television himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2k11QQW0g.

[facepalm]

"That's the entire point, enforcing religious tests is absurd."

Are Christians actually exempt, or are you referring to the "prioritization of people who are religiously persecuted", who happen to include Christians in those Muslim countries?

"Yes, shocking enough, due process is necessary. And perhaps we don't grant visas and green cards to people who are considered dangerous then?"

But that seems to be the goal? I don't understand you?

"Guiliani" - will watch later, can not watch videos right now.

[whorleater]

> prioritization of people who are religiously persecuted", who happen to include Christians in those Muslim countries?

Christians are hardly persecuted in Muslim countries.

> But that seems to be the goal? I don't understand you?

A blanket ban is not due process. These people were legally allowed to immigrate, and a ban (thereby leaving them off of American soil) is not due process.

[facepalm]

"Christians are hardly persecuted in Muslim countries."

You mean, for example, a Christian family living on IS territory would be just fine? That seems very unlikely to me. But perhaps I have fallen victim to fearmongering about the IS.

"A blanket ban is not due process."

I am not saying it was handled well, but it seems an important distinction to note that the ban is temporary. The assumption seems to be that the checks previously in place were insufficient.

[VLM]

Minor corrections that we have been in a cold war with Iran, and a hot war with Islamic terrorism, both for a long time.

Walls are only crazy when the USA builds one; Israeli walls are great as is every other wall on the planet. Only USA walls are bad. Why? Donno.

You mention you're German, we treat our illegals as a slave racial underclass. On paper everyone gets OSHA protection, in practice only white people get OSHA protection, Americans are extremely racist. Essentially they hold the bottom social position that blacks had pre-civil rights. They are a form of corporate welfare in that their wages paid by the corporation are extremely low but the programs required for their entire families that are paid for by the citizen taxpayers at immense expense (those citizens are being driven out of work, so in the long run this pyramid scheme of a scam will run out of gas). Sort of the walmart effect (have the government pay the difference between the total cost of living and the pay we're willing to provide) but stronger.

I think the analogy to the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 is useful, why if only we had opened our hearts when the planes appeared on the horizon, then the Japanese refugees would have simply landed their planes and opened Sushi shops in Hawaii, it all our fault that they killed thousands of military and civilians in a sneak attack, and saying anything bad about them or their actions is racist and horrible and especially above all else deplorable. There must not be thought and reasoning about the topic, only Pavlovian conditioned emotional response is acceptable discourse on the topic.