6 ms·

In relation to passport power - I find Trump's proposed ban on Muslims pretty interesting to think about. Although widely criticized, it seems to me more ethic

In relation to passport power - I find Trump's proposed ban on Muslims pretty interesting to think about. Although widely criticized, it seems to me more ethically wrong to base entry decisions on country of origin (not a choice) than of religion (a choice). Obviously there are many issues with the practicality, unintended consequences, and the blanket nature of a ban on muslims. That said, I'm not sure I see an ethical issue compared to restricting based on country of origin (what this site shows).

sanswork 10y ago
Believing in a religion is largely a choice though some arguments could be made for conditioning from childhood meaning it isn't but being a member of a religion definitely isn't a choice in large parts of the world.
- zo1 10y ago
  "Conditioning" is a very mild way of putting it. The parents' beliefs are almost always presented as fact to the child, from a very very tender age.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  It'd be better off to quiz people on their beliefs. Perhaps if someone answers they think honour killings are barbaric (to play off what Trudeau said), then they don't get a visa. But I suppose that'd be as much of a joke as the previous questions they asked "are you a member of a terrorist organisation". OTOH maybe it's not such a big stretch to say that visa-issuing officers should review for cultural acceptability in addition to financial capability, likelihood-of-return and all the other criteria they use. And then it'd leak information. People would say "hey, wait, how did you get a visa if it asks serious questions". Unless there's an exemption for lying in that group, then the group might go after them. (IIRC, certain religious groups in Europe were big on quizzing others regarding baptism. Some answerers viewed lying incredibly poorly, to the point of answering truthfully even if it mean they'd be killed.)
msoad 10y ago
While a lot of people think what Trump said is extremely out of what United State legislators stand for, current Senate and President passed and signed HR-158[1] which bans European citizens that visited Iran, Syria and Iraq in past 5 years from getting into United States without a visa. This is going to apply to pretty much any dual citizen of Europe that visit their families back home in every couple of years. Obviously asking for someone's religion is the most stupid way of filtering terrorist, when governments decide to do something like that they discriminate based on place of origin. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158
- umurkontaci 10y ago
  IANAL, but the bill sounds like it doesn't ban Europeans to enter the country, but waives the right to travel without a visa. It might be possible to enter U.S. by acquiring a visa.
  - ragazzina 10y ago
    This is correct. I am a European who visited Iran. Before that, I could travel to the U.S. with the ESTA (14$). Now I must ask for a B2 tourist visa, which is valid for 10 years and is multi-entry - but it costs ~160$ and it requires me to have an interview with the consul to prove that I am not going to just not fly back to my country and immigrate into the US permanently.
thesimon 10y ago
But wasn't Trump not only suggesting a visa-requirement, but a complete ban? Seems very different.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  That's what he originally said and all I could find on his website[1]. I think in other interviews he's backed off, first with "of course there'd be exceptions". Which would be obvious: otherwise you'd prevent heads-of-state visiting. Then he changed it to "obviously this is about countries related to terrorism" which can probably be seen as just an extension of current policy, a backtrack from his earlier position. Which seems typical: stay something "outrageous" back off to something more reasonable. 1: Side note: How utterly obnoxious is CloudFlare? They feel they need to present a CAPTCHA to visitors (at least out of US?) to prevent a DDoS of read-only material. Lame.
andyidsinga 10y ago
I'm not sure religion is so much of a choice. I grew up in a household of a particular religion that my parents imposed and even though I don't really identify what that religion anymore it was a very strong influence on me until my mid-20s. Even when I didn't identify with it internally, I still said i was a ______. IMO, It's extremely hard to find an alternative and maybe even harder for one to say they're agnostic or atheist.
- noobermin 10y ago
  And the fact that you were able to separate from said religion is probably made easier by the society you live in. In some cultures, the religion is synonymous with cultural identity, if not at least a central part of it.
  - andyidsinga 10y ago
    very true!
charlesism 10y ago
Reasoning about immigration laws is pointless because the foundation is based on magical thinking. There is no logic at all behind any of it. Citizenship by blood, by birthplace, by religion... then you look into getting a travel visa, or a work permit. There's nothing rational about any of it. Just endless lunacy. I probably shouldn't complain, as I'm eligible for four different citizenships... but when you look into this stuff, there's nothing very logical about it, and it's somewhat depressing that the planet is still this bizarre.
- charlesism 10y ago
  ...while I'm ranting: citizenship in return for military service, honorary citizenship, citizenship from owning property, and outright purchase of citizenship. Can anyone think of more? I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.
  - charlesism 10y ago
    And I missed a few common ones ...by marriage ...by continuous residence ...political asylum! Duh!
  - Bulkington 10y ago
    Birth tourism, or the politically freighted 'anchor baby'? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism
- eeZah7Ux 10y ago
  It's quite depressing to see how the concepts of country, nationality, borders are still widely accepted without questioning.
  - charlesism 10y ago
    Yes. If you want to amuse yourself, take a look at the "I Want Out" section of Reddit. How quickly people begin to question when they realize how restrictive the situation really is. It all seems rational until you discover you can't spend more than three months in your girlfriend's country, or accept that job offer if some committee hasn't placed it in the "skilled labor" column.
tarikjn 10y ago
This goes both ways: (1) a ban on a country is usually there for a temporary reason of leverage on leaders/system of government on which the citizens may have a varying degree of control through different means. (2) However, a ban on a religion which has many movements (some of them infighting), and radically opposed views and some crazies, on which the majority have no control or relationship with whatsoever could seem more wrong. (1) is trading on an existing system of unethical attributes (2) is creating an additional one. Let's not forget that the USA was founded by people who were looking for religious freedom and peace from prosecution. A test on specific beliefs is much more appropriate and actually already implemented on immigration forms (e.g. questions on polygamy).

sanswork 10y ago

Believing in a religion is largely a choice though some arguments could be made for conditioning from childhood meaning it isn't but being a member of a religion definitely isn't a choice in large parts of the world.

zo1 10y ago
"Conditioning" is a very mild way of putting it. The parents' beliefs are almost always presented as fact to the child, from a very very tender age.
MichaelGG 10y ago
It'd be better off to quiz people on their beliefs. Perhaps if someone answers they think honour killings are barbaric (to play off what Trudeau said), then they don't get a visa. But I suppose that'd be as much of a joke as the previous questions they asked "are you a member of a terrorist organisation". OTOH maybe it's not such a big stretch to say that visa-issuing officers should review for cultural acceptability in addition to financial capability, likelihood-of-return and all the other criteria they use. And then it'd leak information. People would say "hey, wait, how did you get a visa if it asks serious questions". Unless there's an exemption for lying in that group, then the group might go after them. (IIRC, certain religious groups in Europe were big on quizzing others regarding baptism. Some answerers viewed lying incredibly poorly, to the point of answering truthfully even if it mean they'd be killed.)

msoad 10y ago

While a lot of people think what Trump said is extremely out of what United State legislators stand for, current Senate and President passed and signed HR-158[1] which bans European citizens that visited Iran, Syria and Iraq in past 5 years from getting into United States without a visa. This is going to apply to pretty much any dual citizen of Europe that visit their families back home in every couple of years. Obviously asking for someone's religion is the most stupid way of filtering terrorist, when governments decide to do something like that they discriminate based on place of origin. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158

umurkontaci 10y ago
IANAL, but the bill sounds like it doesn't ban Europeans to enter the country, but waives the right to travel without a visa. It might be possible to enter U.S. by acquiring a visa.
- ragazzina 10y ago
  This is correct. I am a European who visited Iran. Before that, I could travel to the U.S. with the ESTA (14$). Now I must ask for a B2 tourist visa, which is valid for 10 years and is multi-entry - but it costs ~160$ and it requires me to have an interview with the consul to prove that I am not going to just not fly back to my country and immigrate into the US permanently.

thesimon 10y ago

But wasn't Trump not only suggesting a visa-requirement, but a complete ban? Seems very different.

MichaelGG 10y ago
That's what he originally said and all I could find on his website[1]. I think in other interviews he's backed off, first with "of course there'd be exceptions". Which would be obvious: otherwise you'd prevent heads-of-state visiting. Then he changed it to "obviously this is about countries related to terrorism" which can probably be seen as just an extension of current policy, a backtrack from his earlier position. Which seems typical: stay something "outrageous" back off to something more reasonable. 1: Side note: How utterly obnoxious is CloudFlare? They feel they need to present a CAPTCHA to visitors (at least out of US?) to prevent a DDoS of read-only material. Lame.

andyidsinga 10y ago

I'm not sure religion is so much of a choice. I grew up in a household of a particular religion that my parents imposed and even though I don't really identify what that religion anymore it was a very strong influence on me until my mid-20s. Even when I didn't identify with it internally, I still said i was a ______. IMO, It's extremely hard to find an alternative and maybe even harder for one to say they're agnostic or atheist.

noobermin 10y ago
And the fact that you were able to separate from said religion is probably made easier by the society you live in. In some cultures, the religion is synonymous with cultural identity, if not at least a central part of it.
- andyidsinga 10y ago
  very true!

charlesism 10y ago

Reasoning about immigration laws is pointless because the foundation is based on magical thinking. There is no logic at all behind any of it. Citizenship by blood, by birthplace, by religion... then you look into getting a travel visa, or a work permit. There's nothing rational about any of it. Just endless lunacy. I probably shouldn't complain, as I'm eligible for four different citizenships... but when you look into this stuff, there's nothing very logical about it, and it's somewhat depressing that the planet is still this bizarre.

charlesism 10y ago
...while I'm ranting: citizenship in return for military service, honorary citizenship, citizenship from owning property, and outright purchase of citizenship. Can anyone think of more? I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.
- charlesism 10y ago
  And I missed a few common ones ...by marriage ...by continuous residence ...political asylum! Duh!
- Bulkington 10y ago
  Birth tourism, or the politically freighted 'anchor baby'? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
It's quite depressing to see how the concepts of country, nationality, borders are still widely accepted without questioning.
- charlesism 10y ago
  Yes. If you want to amuse yourself, take a look at the "I Want Out" section of Reddit. How quickly people begin to question when they realize how restrictive the situation really is. It all seems rational until you discover you can't spend more than three months in your girlfriend's country, or accept that job offer if some committee hasn't placed it in the "skilled labor" column.

tarikjn 10y ago

This goes both ways: (1) a ban on a country is usually there for a temporary reason of leverage on leaders/system of government on which the citizens may have a varying degree of control through different means. (2) However, a ban on a religion which has many movements (some of them infighting), and radically opposed views and some crazies, on which the majority have no control or relationship with whatsoever could seem more wrong. (1) is trading on an existing system of unethical attributes (2) is creating an additional one. Let's not forget that the USA was founded by people who were looking for religious freedom and peace from prosecution. A test on specific beliefs is much more appropriate and actually already implemented on immigration forms (e.g. questions on polygamy).