4 ms·

> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains th

> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does: 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... and also explains why the language of the order does not contain a religious test. > Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. Later the administration seems to have reversed their stance on this. (Here is a later overview: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-bannon-idUSKBN15E2TG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-bann...)

cookiecaper 10y ago
>As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does From the article: "And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” You're sending me an article that quotes Giuliani as explicitly stating "it's not about religion, it's about terrorists" as proof that it's about religion? Am I reading this right? >This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. I addressed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180
- ctchocula 10y ago
  Read the article more carefully. From the article: > “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.' " Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” The story goes: 1. Trump phone call to Giuliani: "Muslim ban. Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally." 2. Giuliani assembles "a whole group of other very expert lawyers": “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point: > The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    We're reading the same story and coming to different conclusions. I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant, not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but not literally". >It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point No, it doesn't contradict my original point at all. It is clear that Trump meant that he wanted to exclude terrorists, not Muslims. If the goal was to exclude as many Muslims as possible, they did a terrible job, because they completely missed the countries with the 5 biggest Muslim populations. The raw populations of the banned countries add up to about 140 million; even if we assume 100% of those people are Muslim, which they aren't, that still leaves more than 90% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims potentially eligible for entrance to the United States. And the whole thing expires in 90 days. Not a very effective "Muslim ban". This goes back to the same thing as the campaign. Seriously, but not literally. Trump said Muslim ban on the campaign trail, that is not in dispute. The issue now is whether he really meant a literal ban on Muslims, or whether he just meant a ban on the bad guys that are blowing us up. Based on his EO, it appears that he meant the latter, but of course there will be people who refuse to let go of their narrative and assume the former because it makes it easier to justify their outrage.
    - grey-area 10y ago
      According to Guilanni, and to the president himself, that's exactly what he meant. There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law and human decency, so they've had to temper it, for now. President Trump has turned out to want literally what candidate Trump proposed. Thiel was wrong in a fundamental way. As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down - Given their [media] hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.
- Malician 10y ago
  Guliani is not the President. Trump is, and Bannon is a top advisor. Trump went to Guliani asking for a Muslim ban and asking how to dress it up; Guliani complied (in a really, really incompetent fashion.) Bannon's views are quite available from the history of Breitbart reporting, and from his interviews (Asian CEOs.) Motives matter when the executive branch has as much power as it does now (and that power is so concentrated in figures like Bannon.)
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    >Motives matter Judicial interpretation generally takes the opposite tack, reading law according to its "plain meaning" rather than an imagined/assumed intent, to prevent just such bias and editorialization as you're displaying here (which, obviously, can be extremely damaging when mingled with governance). Impute whatever intentions you wish on your favorite boogeymen, it doesn't change the text of the law under which Americans are governed.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      Judicial interpretation is generally is embroiled in a partisan fight over originalism vs. substantive/contextual/... canons. The most recent case of the Supreme Court rejecting "plain meaning" was Obamacare, where it was decided that "State" in "an Exchange established by the State" also includes those established by the federal government. But I doubt you'll even need to show that the EO started with the wish to implement a Muslim Ban, because it is doubtful that their efforts to soften it until it is legal were successful. As an analogy: Would a company policy never to employ a woman born in odd-numbered years be discriminatory? If you insist on "no, because it doesn't discriminate against all women", how about a policy against hiring any women who's current age is even? That must then also be non-discriminatory, right? Now what if a company were to implement both policies? Can two non-discriminatory policies add up to something discriminatory?
- comex 10y ago
  According to sources cited by the New York Times, the initial application to green card holders was quite intentional: > Mr. Kelly’s department had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order, but Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller, a hard-liner on immigration, overruled him, according to two American officials. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-national-security-council.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-...
  - zaroth 10y ago
    I checked twice, and this doesn't seem to be in the Opinion section, but it is dripping wet with editorial. I read a lot of NYT, but with pieces like this it's really hard to find the news in between the ranting.
- Oletros 10y ago
  > The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. When there are exceptions involving religious minorities in the EO, there is a lot about religion

cookiecaper 10y ago

>As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does From the article: "And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” You're sending me an article that quotes Giuliani as explicitly stating "it's not about religion, it's about terrorists" as proof that it's about religion? Am I reading this right? >This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. I addressed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180

ctchocula 10y ago
Read the article more carefully. From the article: > “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.' " Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” The story goes: 1. Trump phone call to Giuliani: "Muslim ban. Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally." 2. Giuliani assembles "a whole group of other very expert lawyers": “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point: > The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  We're reading the same story and coming to different conclusions. I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant, not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but not literally". >It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point No, it doesn't contradict my original point at all. It is clear that Trump meant that he wanted to exclude terrorists, not Muslims. If the goal was to exclude as many Muslims as possible, they did a terrible job, because they completely missed the countries with the 5 biggest Muslim populations. The raw populations of the banned countries add up to about 140 million; even if we assume 100% of those people are Muslim, which they aren't, that still leaves more than 90% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims potentially eligible for entrance to the United States. And the whole thing expires in 90 days. Not a very effective "Muslim ban". This goes back to the same thing as the campaign. Seriously, but not literally. Trump said Muslim ban on the campaign trail, that is not in dispute. The issue now is whether he really meant a literal ban on Muslims, or whether he just meant a ban on the bad guys that are blowing us up. Based on his EO, it appears that he meant the latter, but of course there will be people who refuse to let go of their narrative and assume the former because it makes it easier to justify their outrage.
  - grey-area 10y ago
    According to Guilanni, and to the president himself, that's exactly what he meant. There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law and human decency, so they've had to temper it, for now. President Trump has turned out to want literally what candidate Trump proposed. Thiel was wrong in a fundamental way. As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down - Given their [media] hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.
Malician 10y ago
Guliani is not the President. Trump is, and Bannon is a top advisor. Trump went to Guliani asking for a Muslim ban and asking how to dress it up; Guliani complied (in a really, really incompetent fashion.) Bannon's views are quite available from the history of Breitbart reporting, and from his interviews (Asian CEOs.) Motives matter when the executive branch has as much power as it does now (and that power is so concentrated in figures like Bannon.)
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >Motives matter Judicial interpretation generally takes the opposite tack, reading law according to its "plain meaning" rather than an imagined/assumed intent, to prevent just such bias and editorialization as you're displaying here (which, obviously, can be extremely damaging when mingled with governance). Impute whatever intentions you wish on your favorite boogeymen, it doesn't change the text of the law under which Americans are governed.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Judicial interpretation is generally is embroiled in a partisan fight over originalism vs. substantive/contextual/... canons. The most recent case of the Supreme Court rejecting "plain meaning" was Obamacare, where it was decided that "State" in "an Exchange established by the State" also includes those established by the federal government. But I doubt you'll even need to show that the EO started with the wish to implement a Muslim Ban, because it is doubtful that their efforts to soften it until it is legal were successful. As an analogy: Would a company policy never to employ a woman born in odd-numbered years be discriminatory? If you insist on "no, because it doesn't discriminate against all women", how about a policy against hiring any women who's current age is even? That must then also be non-discriminatory, right? Now what if a company were to implement both policies? Can two non-discriminatory policies add up to something discriminatory?
comex 10y ago
According to sources cited by the New York Times, the initial application to green card holders was quite intentional: > Mr. Kelly’s department had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order, but Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller, a hard-liner on immigration, overruled him, according to two American officials. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-national-security-council.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-...
- zaroth 10y ago
  I checked twice, and this doesn't seem to be in the Opinion section, but it is dripping wet with editorial. I read a lot of NYT, but with pieces like this it's really hard to find the news in between the ranting.
Oletros 10y ago
> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. When there are exceptions involving religious minorities in the EO, there is a lot about religion