2 ms·

It is a partial fulfillment of the goal Trump explicitly stated repeatedly during the campaign: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country".

It is a partial fulfillment of the goal Trump explicitly stated repeatedly during the campaign: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country". He has taken a very large concrete step toward this outcome, explicitly and obviously in service of it. To claim otherwise requires both being obtuse about the wording and the belief that Trump won't do what he said he was going to do. After the events of the past week, the latter claim seems indefensible.

moomoo2 10y ago
There are a lot of people who will happily accept a temporary suspension of immigration from countries full of ISIS fighters who are trying to exploit our immigration system based on the president's word that the various security services need 90 days to tighten things up. There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest if literally anything more aggressive is done from here (and who also vehemently opposed the original proposal during the campaign.) The slippery slope fallacy falls short.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  > There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest Trump, of all people, has given no indication at all that his policy decisions will be swayed by protest. > The slippery slope fallacy falls short. It's not a slippery slope when Trump said that a Muslim ban was what he was going to do! It's not "oh, he might bring up banning all Muslims from entering at this rate". He already said he wanted to do that. Explicitly.
- mcguire 10y ago
  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-a...
refurb 10y ago
You're being selective in your quote of Trump. What he said was... * “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.” * That is a very different statement from you said.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  We who oppose this ban are not opposing it because we think it will be permanent. We are not OK with a temporary ban either. (Few think that this xenophobic era of far right blood-and-soil nationalism will last forever, after all.)
  - refurb 10y ago
    That's your prerogative to oppose the ban. However, stopping all immigration from countries that have been deemed "high risk" until the security of the US can be improved does not seem like an outrageous move to me.

moomoo2 10y ago

There are a lot of people who will happily accept a temporary suspension of immigration from countries full of ISIS fighters who are trying to exploit our immigration system based on the president's word that the various security services need 90 days to tighten things up. There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest if literally anything more aggressive is done from here (and who also vehemently opposed the original proposal during the campaign.) The slippery slope fallacy falls short.

pcwalton 10y ago
> There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest Trump, of all people, has given no indication at all that his policy decisions will be swayed by protest. > The slippery slope fallacy falls short. It's not a slippery slope when Trump said that a Muslim ban was what he was going to do! It's not "oh, he might bring up banning all Muslims from entering at this rate". He already said he wanted to do that. Explicitly.
mcguire 10y ago
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-a...

refurb 10y ago

You're being selective in your quote of Trump. What he said was... * “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.” * That is a very different statement from you said.

pcwalton 10y ago
We who oppose this ban are not opposing it because we think it will be permanent. We are not OK with a temporary ban either. (Few think that this xenophobic era of far right blood-and-soil nationalism will last forever, after all.)
- refurb 10y ago
  That's your prerogative to oppose the ban. However, stopping all immigration from countries that have been deemed "high risk" until the security of the US can be improved does not seem like an outrageous move to me.