To anyone who is being affected by the immigration ban my thoughts are with you right now.

He has stated that exceptions would be made to immigrants belonging to religious minorities who have been persecuted for their religion, even going so far as to say during an interview that they would favour Christians. Although this wording does not mention a ban on Muslim immigrants, it is still an effective ban on Muslim immigrants. When you combine this with an overall ban on refugees and immigrants from these countries, there is no way into the US if you are from those countries and Muslim.

@immortal_guy: Not that agree whith basicly anything Trump says or does but to be frank, a couple getting a minor hickup in their homeflight from a holiday is "unintended consequences" i can live with.

@bojackhorseman: Does Band of Brothers even remotely touch on the pre-war era? I'm not seeing how anything you saw on that show reminded you of what is currently happening. Conflating an ostensibly temporary immigration ban with mechanized warfare on a global scale seems to me to be rooted in hysteria. Concluding one might lead to the other seems incredibly tenuous.

No doubt trade helps, but I'd argue the vastly diminished position of european nations on the world stage and two superpowers pointing nuclear weapons over our heads had far more to do with ensuring we behaved than increasing trade did. The EU certainly could have remained a limited force for peace if it had restricted itself to simply being a trade organisation between sovereign nations, but it didn't so here we are.

@onemanarmyy: Out of interest what country are you from?

The intent was a Muslim ban. That's exactly how Trump described it initially, and as recently as yesterday, Giuliani said that this was their planned attempt to "legally" implement a Muslim ban (article and interview).

They can claim all that they want that they did it for the sake of security, but to me, it seems largely just motivated by Islamaphobia. If anything, I feel like this is actually detrimental to the safety of the American people.

@horseman6: I could be completely wrong on this, but didn't he walk back a bit on the "ban all muslims" rhetoric during the campaign at some point?

Regardless, it's been one week and his quick actions are stunning. That's still the shocker to me, I thought it would take way longer for him to actually do anything.

To everyone defending this international travesty, I assume you don't know a single person impacted by this ban. My wife's boss came to the US as a refugee from Iran during the Islamic Revolution. Some of her family is still there, including her father. Her father is currently dying in a hospital in Tehran and thanks to this ban she's likely never going to see him again. Thanks to the ban, she's likely going to either be turned away by Iran or not allowed readmission to the US. Thanks to the ban, her children definitely won't be allowed into Iran to see their grandfather again once the Iranian government retaliates.

But hey, at least we kept out refugees trying to escape wars that the US participated in. Refugees that already go through the most stringent vetting process in the world in order to gain asylum in the US. There is a need to vet people coming into the US, but we already do that on a granular, case-by-case basis. This order is so broad it's likely unconstitutional. It's also likely to cost the US millions of dollars in settlement money once all of the lawsuits are finished.

That's without even getting into the ethical and philosophical problems with "The Land of the Free" keeping out millions of people based on their nationality and religion. And those are real big fucking problems.

Indeed. Not to mention even if he didn't say openly that he wanted to ban muslims, it's painfully obvious that is exactly what is in effect. I don't think claimed intentions should matter, especially not on this level of political power. What matters is the effect your actions have.

@bfz: He walked it back when he was informed that a Muslim ban would likely be illegal if he phrased it that way. This EO is an attempt to create a Muslim ban without saying it's a Muslim ban.

@thatpinguino: I don't think anyone is defending the policy the way it was implemented.

The only thing some people are saying is that nothing about an immigration ban is unconstitutional or illegal.

The way it was rolled up and implemented was absolutely a disaster, it seems there was no thought put into it before it was sent out at all.

@milkman: It wasn't intended as a defence, it was an attack on the blatant hypocrisy of most of those employing phoney outrage to bash Trump. The reason there was no outrage when Obama did the same thing was because the outrage is motivated by politicism, not on the compassionate grounds purported.

Personally I have no problem with the actions taken by either President on this issue. Obama was right to halt it when he did and Trump just won an election with this as one of his campaign promises. As Obama said: "Elections have consequences..."

@jimbo said:

It's not quite the same thing. And it's not really accurate to say that 'Obama did it'. The Obama era version came from a bill introduced by a Republican representative for Michigan, Candice Miller. It was put to vote and passed 407 - 19. 242 Republicans and 165 Democrats voted in favour of it. The Trump version comes from an executive order.

It also didn't bar people from entering the United States. It meant that the affected people had to get a full visa and were no longer eligible for the Visa Waiver Program. This process takes longer and is more costly but is not a complete ban like we have now. Two groups of people were affected: 1. Those with dual citizenship for Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria. and 2. People who had visited Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen on or after 1 March 2011. Exceptions could be made for journalists, diplomats, humanitarian workers, military etc. on a case by case basis.

It mainly made it more difficult for people connected to those countries who had since moved to one of the 38 Visa Waiver Program countries to travel back and forth. It's still problematic but it was different. It didn't make it more difficult for someone born and living in Iran or Syria to get to the United States as those countries were never eligible for the Visa Waiver Program.

It didn't turn away refugees who had already been vetted. Or indefinitely ban refugees from Syria, which is now the case. By specifying 'Since-2011' it didn't stop a British Member of Parliament born in Iraq from visiting his children currently studying in the US, which is now the case. It didn't suggest it would priorities non-Muslim Refugees from the Muslim majority countries, which is now the case. It might seem similar on the surface but it's not the same.

@thatpinguino: Gotcha. That makes sense. Basic political sidestepping.

What's frustrating to me is (again, fulling admitting my ignorance on this subject) I don't see why something so extreme would even be necessary. Terroisim will always be a problem and 9/11 still seems like yesterday to me. But in reality it was 15 years ago. Homegrown terrorism seems like the bigger problem now. Won't this EO stoke more anti-american sentiments abroad AND at home? I fear that all this does will drive people to hate us more and contribute to the growth of terrorism.

That doesn't even get into what this country is based on in terms of immigrants etc.

Trade bringing peace is not an opinion I have. It's literally one of the backbones of economic theory.

@thatpinguino: if that's the case though, why didn't he suspend immigration from all Muslim countries? I mean he captured what, maybe 30% of the Muslim population?

I asked my wife about this yesterday as she's an immigrant. Her view is that improving vetting is a good idea but a blanket suspension is pretty dumb. I agree with her and feel bad for the people trying to get in.

@bojackhorseman: there are all kinds of trade. When a country ships millions of jobs overseas and leaves their citizens in the dust, because "trade", you're sowing the seeds of discontent. Why do you think Trump is our president right now?

DHS is basically going to ignore the judge's ruling. President Steve Bannon sure is a piece of shit.

@horseman6: Because we have strategic reliance on some Muslim countries. He banned the countries where the blow-back wouldn't be as severe. He literally campaigned on a promise to ban all Muslims, then walked it back when it was clear that an outright ban wouldn't fly. He included a clause in the EO to give priority to people of "minority religions". I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to read between the lines here.

@bfz: it probably will. But we don't have many choices now do we? There are many theories as to what can be done to prevent homegrown terrorism but short of banning the internet and tracking everyone, it's not possible. Unfortunately, the damage has been done and extremism in Muslim countries and even in non-Muslim countries will take generations to diffuse. There are things we can do that might help but both appeasement and aggression won't help.

This is basically the sentiment of most of the right-wing criticism of this EO. This EO is so broad that it only plays into terrorist propaganda and hurts those who would otherwise be sympathetic to the US.

@horseman6: Im pretty sure not getting hated by the entire world would actually help.

@thatpinguino: I'm still trying to understand the point of this. Why focus on only the ones selected? Easy targets? If anything then, this is simply a short term thing meant to appease some of the people that voted for him. Trump isn't dumb, impulsive but not dumb.

Because after eight years with a democrat, there will always be a republican. I think it's one case in the entire history of the US where that has not been the case? As for why Trump was the republican nominee, well... That's complex. Race is a major part of that however.

@paulmako: The biggest difference of course is Trump is President now and wasn't then.

The British MP may be temporarily restricted from visiting as a tourist, but I strongly suspect he is still able to visit in an official capacity?

I won't even say these are unintended consequences, as the goal seems to be to temporarily reduce the workload for the relevant authorities while they work out what the vetting processes should be going forward. That was what I understood Trump's position to be when he was (successfully) campaigning for President.

@rethla: we've done well being hated for the past 250 years. Weakness and apologies didn't do anything during then Obama years, why would it help now? Like I said, the damage is done, weakness will make us an easy target and aggresssion will only worsen the problem.

@bojackhoseman:

It's very common,

Reagan-HW

Harding -Coolidge-Hoover

Roosevelt-Truman

Kennedy-Johnson

The reason Clinton lost is because she didn't appeal to the millions of unemployed or underemployed middle class white people. A lot of those people voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012z

@horseman6: There wasnt much of weakness and apologies during Obama but still He was probably the most popular President worldwide and a good start. Just by being black he probably won more favors worldwide than any president before him.

Obama was treated like an icon in many third world countries and refugeecamps and meanwhile trump is basicly a dartboard in the same housholds.

@sysyphus: I hope your post gets traction here but the liberal nature of this community might make that hard to see.

End of the day I hope this country stops simply accepting the world's troubled population. It's a temporary, stopgap measure that allows these conditions to continue A) for much longer than they would if a desperate population finally rose up and B) with far more people unable to flee staying in country while war crimes and the like are committed.

I'm also concerned about my own community and country. While many immigrants are fundamentally fine people, lets look at what happened in France: abandoned children, violence, abuse, etc. Refugees swarmed trucks, threw rocks, damaged vehicles, etc.

It's fair to want to limit these types of people from coming into our country. If someone saved from a battlefield death can't be respectful and safe within the community helping them, why should they be allowed to benefit from that asylum while thousands more of their people suffer?

Sympathy does these people no good. Emotion of any kind does them no good. Action on the other hand helps a great deal, but only when that energy is put to use properly.

We aren't a sprawling country anymore. Some of our cities are reaching ludicrous population levels and densities. Our natural wilderness is disappearing with every day. We are not an infinite source of shelter and land for the people of the world.

I'd much rather help those people take their own land rather than help them live in squalor here in the states.

@hippie_genocide: Do you have any concept of how immensely difficult it is to vet someone from a 3rd world war zone? We have no good way of verifying ID, recent behavior, interests, contacts, etc. It is not that simple, and it isn't just radicals that pose a threat to a community accepting refugees from these places. Look at what has been happening in places like France.

"No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States. "

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation#

I don't know all the ins and outs of US constitution etc, but this seems like a logical position to me.

If Germany and Sweden adopted this attitude maybe they would not have all the chaos they have now after letting in anyone and everyone demanding asylum. People act as if they have a right to citizenship in whichever country they wish to move to. I believe every country has the right to allow, and deny entry to whoever they wish, in whatever numbers they deem acceptable.

I would not demand entry into another country and get upset if I get denied.

That said if the position regarding green card holders is true, that's ridiculous. These people have already been screened, and jumped through all the legal hoops required. Quite frankly they have complied with your rules and then you want to punish them? That is the height of idiocy and will only breed contempt and lawlessness.

Well, we both know that line-up isn't true. Kennedy-Johnson can be removed, as Kennedy sat for two years and was assassinated. Johnson sat for the remainder of that period, plus one period. Roosevelt-Truman were extraordinary circumstances, but fair enough.

Reagen-HW, that's two republicans. Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, that's three republicans. You must take great care to read what I am actually saying. Go back and read my comment again.

As for other examples; Pierce-Buchanen, both sat four years, for a total of eight. The only real example I can find is Jackson-Van Buren. So my original comment stands. After eight years of a democrat, there will be a republican. As for Clinton, as it's said many times, she did appeal to three million more people than Trump. If not for an ancient slave law, she would be Pres.

@thatpinguino: This is Trump's go-to strategy on everything. His 'walking back' is usually him sacrificing a piece he knew he was likely going to have to sacrifice before he started playing. He overstates his original position so that he can give something away and still end up with what he wanted. Putin uses the same trick.

It's incredible to me that everyone has just watched Trump take up politics as hobby, demolish the establishment on both sides of the aisle and are still happy to fall for the narrative that he's just some bungling idiot.

@sysyphus: Tell me about the "chaos" happening in my home country.

I would argue that the fallout over this most recent order shows that he does not know how to govern and he is just a bungling idiot.

@opusofthemagnum: Ugh, gross. I won't consciously contribute to the inevitable lock of this thread, so I'll leave the discussion about your personal views out of this, but I would like to tell you as someone who visits France often, you're absolutely wrong in whatever you think is going on over there. You're also one of the lowest population density countries of the western world. I live in the Netherlands and we still have space for refugees here and we are in the top 30 density countries on the planet. The US doesn't even crack the top 150.

You're also like the number one in the world of having domestic citizens in prison. If you want anything to be scared about, it should probably be your non-religious or Christian neighbor. Not an islamic refugee. Every point you make highlights how much emphasis you put on seeing it as 'your land' to be the reason more than anything else.

@bojackhorseman: "After eight years of a democrat, there will be a republican."

Amazing record. Tells you all you need to know about how bad a job the democrats tend to do running the country.

"As for Clinton, as it's said many times, she did appeal to three million more people than Trump. If not for an ancient slave law, she would be Pres."

Suspiscions of large scale voter fraud aside, we can't say that. If the game had completely different rules the players would have played it differently. It's also debatable whether there would even be a United States of America to be President of if they were selected by popular vote.

@jimbo: I agree that we shouldn't discount Trump's unique ability to make himself unpopular but saying that his presence is the definitely the core reason people are making more noise over this is disingenuous. The stances are materially different for all the reasons I said before.

As for the British MP, I'm not sure yet. His family fled Iraq when he was 9. I suppose he must be a threat. He's just one example. If the only way any Iraqi born British citizen is able to visit their family in the US is by going on a diplomatic visit then that's a pretty rotten situation. Very few people are going to get that opportunity.

@milkman: Goddammit Dan, you're making me tear up. Good on ya duder.

@peteycoco: Good on Dan.

Yeah, I'm scratching my head against those types of comments too. It's ridiculous how fear has spread so much that these guys think all these European countries are on fire.

Also @sysyphus it's clear you don't know what's going on in the world, but make no mistake, you totally would get upset if you got denied access into a country and had to return to see your wife get raped and be murdered afterwards.

@peteycoco: What is the fallout? The people that have already chosen not to like him continue to not like him. His voters are happy that he's doing what he said he'd do.

As I understand it, his executive order has not been 'overturned' as some here are claiming and still remains in effect.

@paulmako: Supposedly this will only be the case for 90 (iirc) days. Beyond that remains to be seen.

@milkman:

Thank you. I don't use twitter and don't follow even GB tweets on the main page that often. And thank you @danryckert for being the kind of guy people think of when they fondly say "true americans".

It was a brexit thread that made me stop reading comments on this site regularly, but I couldn't resist checking to see if there were GB members who supported this action & sure enough.

Does it not make you reflect when none of the people who run the site you joined agree with you?

Another important reminder that we are regularly killing civilians in the countries that we are telling these people to go back to.