[FusilliGary]

Can we acknowledge that this specific event happened last October, before Trump was elected? I am 100% not a Trump supporter, but the article is definitely trying to have people infer that it has to do with Trump's travel ban when it does not.

[briandear]

Correct -- there have also been a lot of disingenuous stories about record numbers of overseas Americans renouncing citizenship.. yet that trend began due to FATCA which was passed by Democrats in 2010. The renunciations started to spike once the impact of that law was felt by overseas Americans and so-called 'accidental' Americans (automatic Americans at birth but no connection to the US.)

There are a lot of these stories that are suddenly making the mainstream press -- the stories themselves are true, but the "why write this now" aspect is clearly an attempt to imply that these issues are Trump inspired when they have been anything but.

And example of this are all of the deportion stories -- the Obama admin had fairly aggressive deportation enforcement, but they didn't inspire protests because Obama isn't Trump.

Even the framing of the stories is suspect: "Muslim Ban" for example -- yet 85% of the world's Muslims were unaffected and not a single religion was named in the text of the executive order. Don't misunderstand -- I don't support national origin bans either, but the media framing is definitely designed not to inform people -- but to provoke.

The fact that this story is appearing now when the incident happened 5 months ago is extremely suspect -- it fits a crafted narrative that Trump is anti-gay or whatever he's supposedly 'anti' this week.

[vinay427]

It isn't a national origin ban if it only covers Muslim-majority countries with a priority process for religious minorities:

> "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."

I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's a ban on Muslims, but it strategically bans (arbitrary groups of) Muslims. Also, if we're going to talk about portrayals, it's worth reminding readers that the countries on the list (Trump signed it, not Obama) have not historically been sources of terrorists.

[dingaling]

The countries on the list date from 2016. No President "signed it", it was established and extended by DHS and State Dept as part of Visa controls.

The EO extended those controls from "no waiver, manual review" to "no access"

[vinay427]

I mean that Trump signed the order knowing the countries on the list, regardless of when and by whom the list was created.

[burkaman]

Trump actually doesn't appear at all in this article.

[lexicality]

No it isn't?