[pcwalton]

> There is nothing in Trump's EO that singles anyone out by religious affiliation or background.

This is false. It has explicit exceptions for "religious minorities".

Wikipedia: "After the resumption of USRAP, refugee applications will be prioritized based on religion-based persecutions only in the case that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in that country."

[edblarney]

" It has explicit exceptions for "religious minorities"."

That doesn't make his EO illegal, and doesn't contradict the commenters statement.

The exception for religious minorities is clear: they are targeted in genocidal acts.

Christians, Yazidis and others face acutely disproportionate and targeted violence because of their religion - so in this case, it's warranted.

The Yazidis in particular, faced outright genocide - ISIS came for them, killed the men, took the women and children into slavery, those that could flee, fled.

The are a persecuted minority group, and I don't think anyone would question the need there.

Governments around the world including the US make special arrangements for persecuted minority groups - I don't think anyone has a problem with this.

[pcwalton]

> doesn't contradict the commenters statement.

Yes, it does. The executive order "singles people out" based on their religion.

It doesn't matter what the motive is (and I think your take on the motive is naive, but that's beside the point).

[edblarney]

Western governments around the world make special considerations for persecuted minorities all the time. That is 'singling out' usually on the basis of ethnicity or religion, sometimes sexual orientation.

[cookiecaper]

Yes, you're correct.

My language was imprecise in that I was referring specifically to the orders limiting entry of foreign nationals, and also specifically referring to singling out specific religious affiliations rather than religious background as a general principle.

But yes, the order does also contain an instruction to prioritize refugees seeking asylum from generalized religious persecution, and states that the refugee's claim should only be prioritized if they are legitimately a religious minority (which seems more like an implicit implementation detail). That section of the order is completely unrelated to the travel ban on foreign nationals.

I appreciate the correction and I will attempt to keep the language precise moving forward.

One other note, it would be best to link to primary sources next time. The full text of the EO is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/execu....

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> and states that the refugee's claim should only be prioritized if they are legitimately a religious minority

WTF does religion-based persecution have to do with "legitimately [being] a religious minority"?

You are aware that people are persecuted for questioning doctrine of the religion that they nominally belong to? That people are persecuted for being gay on religious grounds, even if it's their own religion?

If you seriously believe what you wrote, you simply fell for the superficial literal meaning of the words. The actual, and quite obviously intentional, effect of banning entry from muslim-majority countries and then making exceptions based on belonging to a minority religion is discrimination based on religion.

[cookiecaper]

>WTF does religion-based persecution have to do with "legitimately [being] a religious minority"?

Because it's an attempt to illegitimately get prioritized refugee status if they learn they can just claim to be religiously oppressed? Wouldn't even a basic vetting verify their claim of religious oppression before granting asylum based on it, and wouldn't a religious minority status be important to credibly claiming persecution? A "religious minority" is not necessarily non-Muslim; it could refer to a Shia Muslim in a predominantly Sunni area or vice-versa, or some type of fringe / modernist Islamic interpretation. The point is confirming that actual religious persecution is going on and not that someone found a shortcut.

[needz]

I would say that while the statement is false, context is required.

America has historically given priority to immigrants that are victim to religion-based persecution. We are, after all, a nation founded by settlers seeking freedom from religious prosecution from a country in which they were the minority.

[mikeash]

I'd say the context just makes it worse, since it would have been so easy to word it in an unobjectionable way. Give exceptions for people suffering from religious persecution, and you're all set.