4 ms·

This doesn't appear to be at all responsive to the concern expressed in the comment you're responding to.

hajile 10y ago
> > If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. > Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? It is a direct response to "the crux of the matter". Trump isn't going to be banning countries on a whim. I read in the news that the police detained up a murder suspect. Now I'm afraid that the police are coming for me even though I haven't hurt anyone. Logical? Country A is temporarily banned for sponsoring or harboring terrorists. Person in Country B is afraid of being banned too even though their country doesn't support terrorism. Logical? People are wrongly arrested every day. Few if any countries have been banned unjustly. If we cry out against a temporary ban, why not cry out even more about the wrongful arrests that take place much more frequently?
- soundwave106 10y ago
  The wrongful arrest argument seems to be a straw man argument against the original concern (though I'll add that wrongful police shootings in particular are a subject of much concern, and have sparked major protest movements in America, actually.) From my perspective, I am guessing that a lot of the original poster's issue comes from the more or less the haphazard, shoot from the hip way this executive order was implemented (temporarily blocking even green card holders for instance)... combined with Trump's past primary campaign rhetoric, which did call for a complete ban of all Muslims from the US at one point. It's less about what was in the order and more about how it was executed, in other words. I am curious what makes you feel confident in your statement "Trump isn't going to be banning countries on a whim". That sounds a little too strongly certainty to me given the above.

> > If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. > Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? It is a direct response to "the crux of the matter". Trump isn't going to be banning countries on a whim. I read in the news that the police detained up a murder suspect. Now I'm afraid that the police are coming for me even though I haven't hurt anyone. Logical? Country A is temporarily banned for sponsoring or harboring terrorists. Person in Country B is afraid of being banned too even though their country doesn't support terrorism. Logical? People are wrongly arrested every day. Few if any countries have been banned unjustly. If we cry out against a temporary ban, why not cry out even more about the wrongful arrests that take place much more frequently?

soundwave106 10y ago
The wrongful arrest argument seems to be a straw man argument against the original concern (though I'll add that wrongful police shootings in particular are a subject of much concern, and have sparked major protest movements in America, actually.) From my perspective, I am guessing that a lot of the original poster's issue comes from the more or less the haphazard, shoot from the hip way this executive order was implemented (temporarily blocking even green card holders for instance)... combined with Trump's past primary campaign rhetoric, which did call for a complete ban of all Muslims from the US at one point. It's less about what was in the order and more about how it was executed, in other words. I am curious what makes you feel confident in your statement "Trump isn't going to be banning countries on a whim". That sounds a little too strongly certainty to me given the above.