[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.

[whorleater]

>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.

How is this any different from Muslim families fleeing the ravages in Aleppo? Do you really think Muslim families are in any better position than Christian ones?

>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.

Temporary and be to be extended at the sole discretion of Trump, and indefinite for Syrians. Tell the families that seek asylum this is temporary. Hell tell the people who went through the legal immigration process, the ones who have lived in the US for years that suddenly their lives in America was not enough vetting. Do you even realize how hard it is to get a visa to get into America from one of these countries?

[facepalm]

"How is this any different from Muslim families fleeing the ravages in Aleppo?"

Not everybody lives in Aleppo.

"Do you really think Muslim families are in any better position than Christian ones?"

Um - yes? If you live in a state were non-believers are executed, for example?

The point is not that no Muslims are worse off than Christians. Just that "Christian" could be a heuristic for checking "persecution status" in certain countries.

"Hell tell the people who went through the legal immigration process, the ones who have lived in the US for years that suddenly their lives in America was not enough vetting"

You mean green card holders? Sorry, I don't know enough about the process. But sure, it seems harsh. I hope they'll get their immigration status back asap.