5 ms·

> And he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US. Isn't "banned muslims" the wrong choice of words here

> And he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US. Isn't "banned muslims" the wrong choice of words here? You could enter US as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia still.

dredmorbius 10y ago
No. No it is not. "Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’" “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI
- wingerlang 10y ago
  Fair enough, but it is still not a literal ban is it? I repeat my statement as a question: as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia, you can still enter US - right?
  - thecopy 10y ago
    Yes, you can. Trump activated a policy invented and signed into law by Obama, he did not choose the countries himself.
    - MagnumOpus 10y ago
      Sorry, you fell for an "alternative fact".
      - lifty 10y ago
        Do you know where this "alternative fact" was published first and how it came into existence? And does it have any root in reality or is it totally manufactured? Would like to understand the phenomenon better.
        aniforprez 10y ago
        http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adm... Obama had an act in place to make it difficult for people fro these countries or who had visited these countries to get a visa. Trump expanded the "getting a visa should be difficult" part to "let's ban people from these countries regardless of if they already have Green Cards or dual citizenships". Obama's act, though again not including countries funding and harboring terrorists, only made it difficult to get a visa which sort of makes sense but is still stupid because it didn't include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. the ACLU protested this act but it was passed through Congress anyway
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Still it is not. Because when you leave out China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Germany, Turkey, UK, France ... which each have a lot of Muslims there whether in relative or absolute terms. The ban is only for arabs in very unstable countries and Iran. There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war and Iran is adversary, so there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all. They way I see it there is no fundamental right of foreigners to enter US. It is a privilege given by the discretion of the executive branch.
  - pg314 10y ago
    > There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one. I do not know how a nation where 70% of the population calls itself christian could turn away refugees from war-torn countries. > there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all. Top US universities and tech firms beg to differ. The US got the best universities and leading tech firms exactly because of immigrants. Paul Graham's essay about this is interesting: http://paulgraham.com/95.html http://paulgraham.com/95.html
    - venomsnake 10y ago
      In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason. Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might. It all depends on the perspective in which you view the other countries.
      - pg314 10y ago
        > In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason. You're moving the goalposts. First you say there is no good reason, then you reframe it 'in the world of realpolitik'. If you want to support your original assertion, you need to argue why realpolitik is the only valid worldview. > Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might. Again, you're moving the goalposts by adding if we define US interest as unchallenged US might and by adding to further your national interest. Even if you accept those premises, your conclusion would need more arguments. Educating citizens of a country might further the US national interest if they stay in the US after their studies or return to their country and oppose their leadership.

dredmorbius 10y ago

No. No it is not. "Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’" “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI

wingerlang 10y ago
Fair enough, but it is still not a literal ban is it? I repeat my statement as a question: as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia, you can still enter US - right?
- thecopy 10y ago
  Yes, you can. Trump activated a policy invented and signed into law by Obama, he did not choose the countries himself.
  - MagnumOpus 10y ago
    Sorry, you fell for an "alternative fact".
    - lifty 10y ago
      Do you know where this "alternative fact" was published first and how it came into existence? And does it have any root in reality or is it totally manufactured? Would like to understand the phenomenon better.
      - aniforprez 10y ago
        http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adm... Obama had an act in place to make it difficult for people fro these countries or who had visited these countries to get a visa. Trump expanded the "getting a visa should be difficult" part to "let's ban people from these countries regardless of if they already have Green Cards or dual citizenships". Obama's act, though again not including countries funding and harboring terrorists, only made it difficult to get a visa which sort of makes sense but is still stupid because it didn't include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. the ACLU protested this act but it was passed through Congress anyway
venomsnake 10y ago
Still it is not. Because when you leave out China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Germany, Turkey, UK, France ... which each have a lot of Muslims there whether in relative or absolute terms. The ban is only for arabs in very unstable countries and Iran. There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war and Iran is adversary, so there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all. They way I see it there is no fundamental right of foreigners to enter US. It is a privilege given by the discretion of the executive branch.
- pg314 10y ago
  > There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one. I do not know how a nation where 70% of the population calls itself christian could turn away refugees from war-torn countries. > there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all. Top US universities and tech firms beg to differ. The US got the best universities and leading tech firms exactly because of immigrants. Paul Graham's essay about this is interesting: http://paulgraham.com/95.html http://paulgraham.com/95.html
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason. Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might. It all depends on the perspective in which you view the other countries.
    - pg314 10y ago
      > In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason. You're moving the goalposts. First you say there is no good reason, then you reframe it 'in the world of realpolitik'. If you want to support your original assertion, you need to argue why realpolitik is the only valid worldview. > Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might. Again, you're moving the goalposts by adding if we define US interest as unchallenged US might and by adding to further your national interest. Even if you accept those premises, your conclusion would need more arguments. Educating citizens of a country might further the US national interest if they stay in the US after their studies or return to their country and oppose their leadership.