Trump's Executive Order Is Harming Christians Already.

[hedrick]

It is good to see a rationale for the countries selected other than "Trump doesn't do business with them".

The problem is that historically our biggest issue has been with Saudi Arabia. 5 of the 7 countries were picked out by an Obama-era order, but that order was for a different purpose. It was concerned with citizens of other countries that had visited those countries. The suspicion was that some of those people might have been attracted to the countries to participate in the fighting. Those would be radicalized people. But citizens simply leaving the countries have (so far) been mostly refugees just trying to get out, not radicals.

If you're trying to protect the US, it's the Saudis that have been the most aggressive about spreading a radical interpretation of Islam. The problem is that there are enough business and military ties that a ban on Saudis wouldn't be practical. I continue to maintain that the countries were chosen as the ones where a ban was practical, but that in practice it's almost entirely symbolic, since they aren't where the real danger has come from. There seem to be a number of people who are grateful because they feel safer. This is useful to Trump politically, but I don't think an illusion of increased safety is a good thing.

I'm not quite so cynical as to say it's countries where Trump doesn't do business, but I think the countries where Trump does business are countries where lots of people do business, and so banning them wasn't practical.

 

[ken777]

The problem is that historically our biggest issue has been with Saudi Arabia. 5 of the 7 countries were picked out by an Obama-era order, but that order was for a different purpose. It was concerned with citizens of other countries that had visited those countries. The suspicion was that some of those people might have been attracted to the countries to participate in the fighting. Those would be radicalized people. But citizens simply leaving the countries have (so far) been mostly refugees just trying to get out, not radicals.

If you're trying to protect the US, it's the Saudis that have been the most aggressive about spreading a radical interpretation of Islam. The problem is that there are enough business and military ties that a ban on Saudis wouldn't be practical. I continue to maintain that the countries were chosen as the ones where a ban was practical, but that in practice it's almost entirely symbolic, since they aren't where the real danger has come from. There seem to be a number of people who are grateful because they feel safer. This is useful to Trump politically, but I don't think an illusion of increased safety is a good thing.

I'm not quite so cynical as to say it's countries where Trump doesn't do business, but I think the countries where Trump does business are countries where lots of people do business, and so banning them wasn't practical.

Trump had to impose a temporary ban immediately because of his election promise and the Obama list was convenient. From what I've read, the Obama list included all seven countries and imposed more strict vetting of people coming to the US. That is the goal of Trump's policy - more strict vetting of people coming into the US.

With 50 Muslim-majority countries, it makes sense to initially focus on a few countries where diplomatic co-operation is non-existent or severely impaired.

 

[Radrook]

So Obama already had them on the list for stricter vetting and Trump immediately pounced on the opportunity by imposing an immediate ban? This fellow is very savvy! I guess his extensive business management experience is coming in very handy.

 

[SolomonVII]

So Obama already had them on the list for stricter vetting and Trump immediately pounced on the opportunity by imposing an immediate ban? This fellow is very savvy! I guess his extensive business management experience is coming in very handy.

The irony, for any who have the ears to hear, or the eyes to see, is mordant.
All the hysteria that is coming forth, even from Obama himself, is in reality directed against Obama's policy itself.
The world is full of people blinded by their own hate and loathing of conservatives, and deafened by their own hypocritical rhetoric.

 

[Radrook]

The irony, for any who have the ears to hear, or the eyes to see, is mordant.
All the hysteria that is coming forth, even from Obama himself, is in reality directed against Obama's policy itself.
The world is full of people blinded by their own hate and loathing of conservatives, and deafened by their own hypocritical rhetoric.

But was Obama intending to take it to that extreme? I recently saw him on YouTube arguing against Trump's ban.

 

[janwoG]

Executive orders should be a bit more subtle.

 

[SolomonVII]

But was Obama intending to take it to that extreme? I recently saw him on YouTube arguing against Trump's ban.

US travel ban: Why these seven countries? - BBC News

Obama has proven himself to be both a liar and a hypocrite in the last eight years. The only intention that we can be sure of from Obama is his own self-aggrandisement.

The narrative of the left has always been to do things for safety on the sly with the full cooperation of the press and demonize the right for speaking for the very things that they are already doing. Trump on the other hand talks extreme, and acts within the range of previous policies of all former American administrations. The press serves as his megaphone blaring out his actions as if they are completely unprecedented. The net effect of Trump's policy is psychological, where people genuinely are afraid that it is not going to be business as usual.
Obama has already had his kick at the cat, and it has not worked out all that well for Europe. Obama for his part tries to commit his successors to a policy which he himself has steered clear of. He made the Australia deal to help the Australians to get rid of their longstanding problem by offloading it on the admistration that would follow his. His immigration policy towards Syria only left in substantial numbers of refugees in in his last year.
Suffice it to say that Trump has served notice that he is going to bind himself more to the immigration policy of Obama/s first seven years, and not be drawn into the pretense of the deals of Obama's last year.
We have seen it all before. Obama's latest stance is a pretense, that he not once intended of shackling his own administration to. Like his last act in the UN against Israel, the effect of what Obama has been doing, if not the actual intent, has been to sabotage whoever would be elected to fill his shoes.
As long as the presidents that book end his eight years can be made to look bad, his mediocre performance will look good in comparison. He only cares about his own self-aggrandizement. Even the welfare of America are low priority in comparison.

 

[Landon Caeli]

But was Obama intending to take it to that extreme? I recently saw him on YouTube arguing against Trump's ban.

But Obama recognized these nations as having Islamic governments that were unorganized and under-developed... With that knowledge, how can we trust free travel to and from, when their country cannot be trusted to inspect whether these citizens are even criminals or murderers themselves?

...Until a proper vetting system is in place, it's too dangerous. Not "extreme" at all, but logical and sensible.