6 ms·

Seems like a lot of these historical incidents are being brought up recently. They are certainly interesting and perhaps show that humanity as a whole tend to r

by daemonk 10y ago

Seems like a lot of these historical incidents are being brought up recently. They are certainly interesting and perhaps show that humanity as a whole tend to repeat the same actions. But is it also the goal to attempt to justify the current immigration ban by citing history? Conway brought up the Obama's tightening of the Iraqi immigration during his term. Does that somehow justify Trump's immigration ban? I guess you can say she is just pointing out the media hypocrisy in being less judgmental with Obama than with Trump and that may be fair. But ultimately it is just a distraction in some sense. I fear Trump's camp is sticking to the "the media is hypocritical" campaign as a distraction. I guess it's a clever way to use the free bad press.

mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
People in Trump's camp have used the Japanese internment as "precedent" for a Muslim ban. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-inte...
- melling 10y ago
  Why is called a Muslim ban? The Muslin world is around 1.7 billion people, and dozens of countries (almost 1/3 of world population): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Muslim_Percent_Population_v2.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Muslim_Percen... And we have over 3 million Muslims in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States People seem to label everything in politics with a positive or negative name, depending on their beliefs. The left and right are so noisy with their claims, I'm having a hard time filtering through all the noise. If we could use a little math in our labeling, we wouldn't get an equality on the ban being for "Muslims". Perhaps we could have our Deep Learning machines come up with Classification names.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Why do people keep assuming the intent behind this cannot be to ban Muslims because it doesn't ban all Muslims?
    - smacktoward 10y ago
      It's also worth noting that these things rarely begin with total action against an "other" -- they begin with baby steps, striking at the most vulnerable and easily scapegoated. The Holocaust didn't begin with Nazis shipping all the Jews to concentration camps, it began with things like protests against Jewish business owners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_boycott_of_Jewish_businesses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_boycott_of_Jewish_busines...) and laws punishing Christians who married Jews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws). Which is why it's critical to oppose these horrible ideas when they are still in their early, tentative steps. Once they pick up momentum, they are much harder to stop.
  - ipsin 10y ago
    Because of the stated intent. This article recaps the times when our current president referred to it thus: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_executive_order_on_immigration_is_a_muslim_ban.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
    - conistonwater 10y ago
      This is right: stated intent matters when you choose what to call something. It's not just "labels".
  - steveax 10y ago
    Because that's what Trump campaigned on and what he called it, until he didn't?
  - hospes 10y ago
    They call it 'Muslim ban' because that term is used by Trump and his team [1]. He basically wanted to demonstrate to his voter base "I promised Muslim ban and I delivered it". [1]"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/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.57fc90dbcd55 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...
Nadya 10y ago
>But is it also the goal to attempt to justify the current immigration ban by citing history? I find it interesting how we see this kind of "news" (reports?) in opposite ways. I see it as a message of "We've done this before - and it was wrong then too! We often talked about how bad and stupid it was we did it at all, yet we're coming full circle." Because I see the media as being largely left-biased, I see these reports as an attempt to remind or educate people on our history. Not supportive of the actions but critical of them. Meanwhile, I see right-leaning media as being more supportive of the actions and less critical (because they largely are...)
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> But is it also the goal to attempt to justify the current immigration ban by citing history? No, none of the articles I've read describe the past historical incidents in a positive light. They're attempting to compare modern actions (discriminating against Muslims) with past actions (discriminating against Italians, or Japanese, or women, or African-Americans). Similar comparisons are made between the Prohibition (of alcohol) and the War on Drugs. The historical incidents are widely and easily recognized to be wrong because we're emotionally distant from them. People should be able to learn from history and realize that analogous actions today are similarly wrong.
ardit33 10y ago
"Conway brought up the Obama's tightening of the Iraqi immigration during his term. Does that somehow justify Trump's immigration ban? -- No it doesn't What Trump did is not just stop immigration, but completely stop even people with valid visas, and green cards (Permanent Residents) from even entering. This is unheard off. Some of them were "detained", put with handcuffed for over 20 hrs. In the midst of it there were a 5 yo, grandmas, and folks that worked for the US government, and served this country. Completely different than just slowing down/stopping refugees coming in. The executive order was cruel and poorly implemented, (and parts of it most likely illegal).
- dominotw 10y ago
  >Some of them were "detained", put with handcuffed for over 20 hrs. I have travel coming up in two months, this makes me nervous. Do you have a source for this by any chance?
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    It really depends where you're coming from and where you've been. If your a former Prime Minister of an allied nation, you'll probably only be detained an hour[0]. Otherwise your mileage may vary[1]. Your local authorities can probably give you some guidance on this. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/03/former-norwegian-prime-minister-detained-at-dulles-airport-for-an-hour-he-visited-iran-in-2014/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/0... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travelers-detained-executive-order-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travele...
    - makomk 10y ago
      Though of course, said former Prime Minister was actually detained under an Obama-era policy that had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with a law passed in late 2015 that had overwhelming bipartisan support. One which got very little coverage until it could be tied to Trump's actions somehow.
mikeash 10y ago
I don't think these WWII-era actions are being brought up to justify anything. It's pretty widely agreed that Japanese internment was really bad, for example, and I think other stuff from that time tends to be seen is the same light. I have seen a lot of cries of hypocrisy, involving Obama's Iraq action you mention, and other things like drone strikes. It's a bit silly, since Obama did get a lot of criticism for this stuff, so the only argument for hypocrisy is that he should have had more. It's not something where a group was totally for X in one case, and totally against it in another case. Anyway, if someone thinks this stuff is good, they should be able to make the case for it directly. They especially shouldn't be leaning on Obama's actions to justify it when their candidate's platform largely boiled down to "I am the opposite of Obama."
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > It's a bit silly, since Obama did get a lot of criticism for this stuff, so the only argument for hypocrisy is that he should have had more. That's a fair point, right? People weren't skipping work and class to march in the town square when Obama bombed Yemen and other countries, but they'll do it when Trump makes a (insensitive, idiotic, broken, heavy-handed, unjust) change to the visa process?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It can be a fair point, depending on exactly what the ultimate argument is. Some have used this argument to defend Trump's actions. It doesn't work for that at all. "You didn't protest sufficiently about Obama, so you should approve of Trump's policies" is just a non sequitur. Some have used this argument to say that we should have protested more about these other things. That argument works, but it's not actionable unless someone invents a time machine (and we'd have to go back and assassinate Hitler first anyway). The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future, which is great, but I don't know that I've seen anyone make it.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
On one hand all those enforcement agencies were a bunch of jerks to begin with. It's hard to make sense of how much of this crap is a result of the "muslim ban" and how much of it is business as usual that's being reported on as a result of the "Muslim ban."
humanrebar 10y ago
For whatever reason, nobody has brought up the actual thought processes of the people who support this ban. My understanding of the arguments is this: 1. too many terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been committed by people born overseas 2. many come from certain "bad actor" or otherwise dysfunctional countries; that they are majority-Muslim is true but it's an incidental fact, not the reason, which is international terrorism 3. the visa vetting process is therefore dysfunctional 4. so the U.S. should pause the visa process for countries referenced in point 2 until point 3 is resolved; it's better to be safe than sorry with respect to point 1 It's my understanding that the comparison to Obama is to support that point 2 isn't about being racist but about practical national security concerns that Obama shared. The difference with Obama's policy is a difference in the degree of concern, not type of concern. That is, if Trump is really racist here, then Obama's at least a little racist, which doesn't seem to be the contention of most people appalled by this executive order. ...that's my understanding of the thought process translated into HN-friendly lingo, anyway.
- hsod 10y ago
  In case anyone was wondering about point 1, there have been three terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 perpetrated by immigrants from countries on the list, with zero deaths. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...)

by daemonk 10y ago

mrgoldenbrown 10y ago

People in Trump's camp have used the Japanese internment as "precedent" for a Muslim ban. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-inte...

melling 10y ago
Why is called a Muslim ban? The Muslin world is around 1.7 billion people, and dozens of countries (almost 1/3 of world population): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Muslim_Percent_Population_v2.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Muslim_Percen... And we have over 3 million Muslims in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States People seem to label everything in politics with a positive or negative name, depending on their beliefs. The left and right are so noisy with their claims, I'm having a hard time filtering through all the noise. If we could use a little math in our labeling, we wouldn't get an equality on the ban being for "Muslims". Perhaps we could have our Deep Learning machines come up with Classification names.
- krapp 10y ago
  Why do people keep assuming the intent behind this cannot be to ban Muslims because it doesn't ban all Muslims?
  - smacktoward 10y ago
    It's also worth noting that these things rarely begin with total action against an "other" -- they begin with baby steps, striking at the most vulnerable and easily scapegoated. The Holocaust didn't begin with Nazis shipping all the Jews to concentration camps, it began with things like protests against Jewish business owners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_boycott_of_Jewish_businesses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_boycott_of_Jewish_busines...) and laws punishing Christians who married Jews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws). Which is why it's critical to oppose these horrible ideas when they are still in their early, tentative steps. Once they pick up momentum, they are much harder to stop.
- ipsin 10y ago
  Because of the stated intent. This article recaps the times when our current president referred to it thus: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_executive_order_on_immigration_is_a_muslim_ban.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
  - conistonwater 10y ago
    This is right: stated intent matters when you choose what to call something. It's not just "labels".
- steveax 10y ago
  Because that's what Trump campaigned on and what he called it, until he didn't?
- hospes 10y ago
  They call it 'Muslim ban' because that term is used by Trump and his team [1]. He basically wanted to demonstrate to his voter base "I promised Muslim ban and I delivered it". [1]"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/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.57fc90dbcd55 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...

Nadya 10y ago

>But is it also the goal to attempt to justify the current immigration ban by citing history? I find it interesting how we see this kind of "news" (reports?) in opposite ways. I see it as a message of "We've done this before - and it was wrong then too! We often talked about how bad and stupid it was we did it at all, yet we're coming full circle." Because I see the media as being largely left-biased, I see these reports as an attempt to remind or educate people on our history. Not supportive of the actions but critical of them. Meanwhile, I see right-leaning media as being more supportive of the actions and less critical (because they largely are...)

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

> But is it also the goal to attempt to justify the current immigration ban by citing history? No, none of the articles I've read describe the past historical incidents in a positive light. They're attempting to compare modern actions (discriminating against Muslims) with past actions (discriminating against Italians, or Japanese, or women, or African-Americans). Similar comparisons are made between the Prohibition (of alcohol) and the War on Drugs. The historical incidents are widely and easily recognized to be wrong because we're emotionally distant from them. People should be able to learn from history and realize that analogous actions today are similarly wrong.

ardit33 10y ago

"Conway brought up the Obama's tightening of the Iraqi immigration during his term. Does that somehow justify Trump's immigration ban? -- No it doesn't What Trump did is not just stop immigration, but completely stop even people with valid visas, and green cards (Permanent Residents) from even entering. This is unheard off. Some of them were "detained", put with handcuffed for over 20 hrs. In the midst of it there were a 5 yo, grandmas, and folks that worked for the US government, and served this country. Completely different than just slowing down/stopping refugees coming in. The executive order was cruel and poorly implemented, (and parts of it most likely illegal).

dominotw 10y ago
>Some of them were "detained", put with handcuffed for over 20 hrs. I have travel coming up in two months, this makes me nervous. Do you have a source for this by any chance?
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  It really depends where you're coming from and where you've been. If your a former Prime Minister of an allied nation, you'll probably only be detained an hour[0]. Otherwise your mileage may vary[1]. Your local authorities can probably give you some guidance on this. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/03/former-norwegian-prime-minister-detained-at-dulles-airport-for-an-hour-he-visited-iran-in-2014/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/0... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travelers-detained-executive-order-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travele...
  - makomk 10y ago
    Though of course, said former Prime Minister was actually detained under an Obama-era policy that had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with a law passed in late 2015 that had overwhelming bipartisan support. One which got very little coverage until it could be tied to Trump's actions somehow.

mikeash 10y ago

I don't think these WWII-era actions are being brought up to justify anything. It's pretty widely agreed that Japanese internment was really bad, for example, and I think other stuff from that time tends to be seen is the same light. I have seen a lot of cries of hypocrisy, involving Obama's Iraq action you mention, and other things like drone strikes. It's a bit silly, since Obama did get a lot of criticism for this stuff, so the only argument for hypocrisy is that he should have had more. It's not something where a group was totally for X in one case, and totally against it in another case. Anyway, if someone thinks this stuff is good, they should be able to make the case for it directly. They especially shouldn't be leaning on Obama's actions to justify it when their candidate's platform largely boiled down to "I am the opposite of Obama."

humanrebar 10y ago
> It's a bit silly, since Obama did get a lot of criticism for this stuff, so the only argument for hypocrisy is that he should have had more. That's a fair point, right? People weren't skipping work and class to march in the town square when Obama bombed Yemen and other countries, but they'll do it when Trump makes a (insensitive, idiotic, broken, heavy-handed, unjust) change to the visa process?
- mikeash 10y ago
  It can be a fair point, depending on exactly what the ultimate argument is. Some have used this argument to defend Trump's actions. It doesn't work for that at all. "You didn't protest sufficiently about Obama, so you should approve of Trump's policies" is just a non sequitur. Some have used this argument to say that we should have protested more about these other things. That argument works, but it's not actionable unless someone invents a time machine (and we'd have to go back and assassinate Hitler first anyway). The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future, which is great, but I don't know that I've seen anyone make it.
  - humanrebar 10y ago

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

On one hand all those enforcement agencies were a bunch of jerks to begin with. It's hard to make sense of how much of this crap is a result of the "muslim ban" and how much of it is business as usual that's being reported on as a result of the "Muslim ban."

humanrebar 10y ago

For whatever reason, nobody has brought up the actual thought processes of the people who support this ban. My understanding of the arguments is this: 1. too many terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been committed by people born overseas 2. many come from certain "bad actor" or otherwise dysfunctional countries; that they are majority-Muslim is true but it's an incidental fact, not the reason, which is international terrorism 3. the visa vetting process is therefore dysfunctional 4. so the U.S. should pause the visa process for countries referenced in point 2 until point 3 is resolved; it's better to be safe than sorry with respect to point 1 It's my understanding that the comparison to Obama is to support that point 2 isn't about being racist but about practical national security concerns that Obama shared. The difference with Obama's policy is a difference in the degree of concern, not type of concern. That is, if Trump is really racist here, then Obama's at least a little racist, which doesn't seem to be the contention of most people appalled by this executive order. ...that's my understanding of the thought process translated into HN-friendly lingo, anyway.

hsod 10y ago
In case anyone was wondering about point 1, there have been three terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 perpetrated by immigrants from countries on the list, with zero deaths. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...)