Same here. Was planning to spend some time with my cousins in California this year, but maybe gonna sit it out as well.

Also, as much as I do not like my President, at least he's a 30-year public servant with a penchant for killing criminals. And he's not Trump. :)

Speaking as an immigrant who travels outside of the US regularly I think its bloody awful - in a nutshell if I'd been born in the wrong country I'd now find myself stranded outside of the US for a minimum of 3 months.

For me that would have meant separation from my kids and also potentially that my pets would be left unattended ... I'm certain that these are real situation for some people this morning.

PS - I have an Iranian friend who is a Phd student here and is worried he now won't get to finish his studies ... he's more 'Americanised' than most Americans I know, he drinks me under the table and is a pretty good Poker player ... surely its better for the US to have people with a favorable opinion of the US promote it as a nice place than to continue an 'us and them' approach which encourages radicalisation?

I think the liberal side is being really stupid here. That's rather disheartening since what this country needs is a principled opposition to Trump.


This kind of thing here(note: I'm not calling you stupid -- I'm calling this kind of reporting stupid). Where are these nations in the executive order? Hint: it's not Trump's list. The list is this:


This is part of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The countries are, in simple terms, those identified as terrorist-sponsoring nations by the Secretary of State. The only nation singled out by Trump in this order is Syria. The current nations on the list are the product of how the Obama administration assessed the situation vis a vis terrorism. Ergo, it's a list that has nothing to with Islam per se and nothing to do with Trump's business interests. And people wonder why the media are perceived as having a liberal bias.

But what we get is breathless 'these are muslim-majority countries', 'the sky is falling', 'the Constitution is being shredded', 'Muslim ban', etc. All this does is pander to the ill-informed and give ammunition to alt-right about the media being an 'opposition party', corrupt, etc. Because apparently the headline 'Trump bans immigration from seven nations identified as terrorist sponsors' isn't sensational enough. And so the media is an active accomplice in fracturing relations between divided religious groups(here and around the world) further.

As I've said, I've very much against Trump and wouldn't have supported him for dog-catcher, but this is not a Muslim ban. The truth matters, and I think people seriously need to get a grip here. Caveat: the issues with those already here etc. are a problem but this really shouldn't affect them. If Trump allows it to, most definitely he gets both barrels for that. I'm also in general against restricting immigration, but I think we can make that argument without engaging in this kind of ... well, 'alternative facts'. Nobody is going to beat Trump by sinking to his level(aside from how repulsive and wrong that is to begin with).

Emirates Airline had to change pilot and crew rosters to fly into the US. That's how stupid this is.

The way I read it that's for the 6 other countries & Syrian refugees are singled out in Section 5cI agree that was Trump's intention, but the actual wording is contradictory, incredibly confusing, and kind of a clusterfuck.
That act re-distributed where immigrants came from and abolished the requirement that their race composition match the existing US population, but still had national quotas which are a form of discrimination by nation at an individual level. Jimmy Carter banned Iranian nationals in 1980, Obama stopped the Iraqi refugee program for 6 months in 2011. Refugees in particular seem even moreso up to the discretion of the President (or possibly Congress?) and are heavily contingent on what nation someone is from. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think defining what nation states we'll accept refugees from is something either well defined or anything the courts are interested in adjudicating. (Returning green card holders, dual nationals, people detained on US soil after being promised entry I'm all for them getting involved in. And a challenge on the Christian part of this is certainly forthcoming & will be interesting to follow - I don't like the way this law did it, but there are countries and times where specific religions are the basis for persecution.)

The Times of London is reporting that Trump held hands with PM May because he has a phobia concerning stairs and slopes.

WTF?

I wonder where we'd go from here if there was actually another terrorist attack. Which of course, isn't any less likely considering none of the people of nationalities who have actually committed terrorist attacks in the U.S. are impacted by this order.

Here's the transcript for Giuliani's remarks about making the Muslim ban "legal," from 3 minute mark in this video: https://t.co/xgW0rYIy6Z pic.twitter.com/NCfWX62KD2

— Kashmir Hill (@kashhill) January 29, 2017

That Facebook page isn't working.

Here's the YouTube link to the video.

When Dick Cheney thinks you've gone overboard in the name of national security, it makes you think. Or maybe he's just another liberal confused by alternative facts.

The good news is the March for Life people are with us on this.... No?

Okay, at least we have the "All Lives Matter!" people... No?

I guess I don't know what words mean anymore.

Many people are saying that Cheney is a RINO.

Are you saying the March for Life people aren't against this ban? Everyone I know who went is against this.

judicial branch wouldn't look it over. The DOJ has an office that should have done so, but they were not consulted.

I'd swallow the 'terrorist sponsoring nations' a little more easily if the list actually included nations which had terrorists who had committed atrocities in the US included in it ... y'know Saudi etc.

You might also want to listen to the Guilliani interview where he specifically says Trump asked for a Muslim ban and for him to work out a way to make it legal ...

So, is this EO a mess because rather than creating, researching and vetting a sensible (and probably nearly identical) EO, trump did this purely for political sensationalism- an emotional patriotic boost for his supporters?

100% Pro-Life here. (And if you recruit and pay someone to murder your wife, of COURSE you will be charged with a crime. Trump got *that* one dead right, but he's a politician just like the rest of them, just a little less...political.)
100% against this action.

Ok, but the Trump administration hasn't changed this list(yet), so your argument there isn't with him. The list, FWIW, is about international terrorism in general, not specifically anti-US terrorism. If it's a bad list, it's a bad list, but that doesn't make it Trump's list. He could have listed 18 random nations he doesn't personally like, or specified 'any nation with a majority Muslim population', etc. Quite possibly he would even have liked to. But he didn't.


I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have, but I don't trust Trump at all. Let's assume everything Giuliani said is right. That does not change facts:

** The current list was made by the SoS under the Obama administration(not blaming him for the EO of course, that's all Trump's doing, just saying that they found these nations to be terrorist sponsors for better or worse)

** This simply is not, by definition a Muslim ban. There are lots of muslim nations not on it. The order does not specify 'no muslims get in'.

I think Trump has an obvious and well-documented desire to discriminate against Muslims. This, again, does not change the facts of where this list came from or what the order actually says. To me the issue here is irresponsible, incompetent reporting by the media(the source of the list is one of the most relevant facts here, and is being almost completely ignored) and the counterfactual hysteria following on. That distracts attention from the more important issue about what immigration policy should be.

There's only three countries currently on the SOS "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list. And the White House has said this is likely just a first step towards establishing a broader ban.

It's Trump's list. And using "bad governments" as the only threshold makes zero sense in the first place. The travel ban isn't on government officials. It's on everyone, including those fleeing these governments that are - wait for it - bad and dangerous governments. That's the point. Travel bans intended to make the country safer should at least have some connection to the threat. If we're going to target countries, or types of people (and we should, to an extent, and we always have), why not at least target those which have produced terrorists that have attacked the U.S.? Why ban athletes and airline pilots and doctors and green card holders and people who have worked intelligence for the U.S. military and passed all those clearances?

Pretty sure that is what he was getting at. Sarcasm doesn't always come through in a chat forum.

As far as the list goes, if it's a list of general terrorism and not US specific terrorism, then why is it being used to ban people coming into the US? This is Trump's deal no matter what the origin of the list is. The reporting on it has been accurate.

Educate me on this then. Maybe my facts are wrong. I've seen the full executive order. Syria is the only nation mentioned by name. Everyone's talking about 7 nations. Where are they getting the others from? Otherwhise at most it's 1 + 3 = 4, not 7.

Is everybody just making up the same seven nations? Is DHS just blocking nations not identified in the executive order? What's the missing piece here? Is it a mere coincidence that it is the exact same seven listed in the 2015 visa bill that Obama signed?


I don't understand how a thinking human being can reach this conclusion. The headlines and main thrust about the nations from literally every mainstream and almost all non-mainstream articles I've seen has repeated the phrase 'majority muslim' as the reason these countries were selected. No references whatsoever to the legislative sources I've mentioned. That's as far from accurate as it is possible to get, aside from getting the nations themselves wrong.

I'm sure there's some list in some government policy document identifying those 7 countries, but why was Trump requires to use that list as opposed to some other list or process connected to actual terrorism threats? You talking like his hands were tied on this.

Didn't the order give an exception to Christians and other minority religions? How is it not a Muslim ban. Trump said the whole campaign he wanted one

Really? It's a list of countries that is predominately Muslim. One of his trusted advisers says it's a list to ban Muslims. Trump himself campaigned unapologetically that he wants to ban Muslims.

It's not a global ban but the intentions of it are fairly clear.

Multiple admin officials made it clear today that Jews were not accidentally left out of the Holocaust Remembrance Day statement, but were intentionally left out because lots of people suffered. That's only one step away from full on Holocaust denial and a favorite line of argument for anti-semites.

The problem with us vs. them politics is that them eventually becomes us.

And Flynn's son and former top advisor has called it a Muslim ban.

No, its people of all faiths from the countries in questions. Some of the individual stories picked up are about Christian families who have been prevented from travelling.

Again, it's the same list that Obama used in 2015 for his visa bill. Was that anti-Muslim? More importantly, did the media treat it that way?(answer obvious)

I'm with you 100% on what he said during the campaign and what he'd probably like to do(I say probably because he lies so much, you can never really know what he thinks). The Holocaust stuff JPhillips just mentioned is disgusting beyond words. None of that changes the facts though. The problem here is the whole idea of 'we know what he really means/wants, so we'll just pretend this is that and attack it as such'. Again, all that does is give him and his supporters ammunition, aside from being fundamentally the wrong thing to do.

.02

No, I'm objecting to the dominant narrative that the only possible reason he chose these countries is that they are majority Muslim and that he picked them out of thin air, devoid of context. His hands weren't tied, he could have done whatever he wanted to, picked any countries he felt like. In fact, I made that point earlier:

Trump called Giuliani to help him draft a muslim ban. He chose a list of predominately Muslim countries that just happened to not include places where he does business. He campaigned on banning muslims. Try to spin it however you want, but it was clearly targeted at keeping muslims out of the US.

Calling it Obama's visa bill is way too much of an overstatement. It was introduced by the Republican and included in the budget compromise. It was signed by Obama as part of that compromise, but he never publicly advocated for it.

It was also pretty narrow in scope. All it did was remove the waiver for visas. People could still travel freely, but they had to get visas even for stays under 90 days.

I'd like to know more about the history of the proposal, but right now it looks like a GOP proposal that was bargained into the budget bill and signed because it didn't do anything more than delay some travel.

He didn't say probably. He advertised it on his site.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

I don't really know how the Visa waiver bill correlates to this. It just meant you didn't get the waiver that is given to people travelling from stable allies like the UK and Canada. You had to fill out the proper paperwork. It didn't ban you in any way.

It's relevant in terms of the countries that were chosen. They were chosen for a reason.


Very true. The relevant point I was making though was about what countries are on the list. Some of the countries it applies to can change, because it's based on various lists the government puts together for security reasons. The point is not what consequences the bill imposed, but what chosen were picked and why.

What part of me repeatedly stating I'm against the policy and strongly anti-Trump makes you think I'm trying to spin it?

I think its more trying to understand why you think Trump was forced to pick these particular countries because of their use in an arbitrary previous piece of legislation ... that rationalization rather than accepting what Trump himself and some of his administration have indicated (ie. that he's targeting Muslims).

Not a surprise. His campaign teetered on the anti-semitic edge. His most ardent supporters aren't exactly big fans of the Jews.

I don't think that, I've said so twice now ... I guess I just think I've run out of useful things to say here.

You said it was "Obama's list", and somehow not "Trump's list", ignoring the context of prior usages of the list being different than this week's, and ignoring the fact that Trump wasn't bound to use that particular list, or even bound to ban travel based on actions of governments.

How is it not "Trump's list" when it's an executive order? This is the most bewildering point I've maybe ever seen here. I'm sure even Trump would tell you that this is a Trump order and a Trump idea, and an execution of Trump policy, down to the last letter. Even Trump wouldn't try to do the tap-dance you're doing here, I think he'd own the entire order and all the impacts it has. I think he'd like to go further, and certainly the people around him would, but it's a first step based on some already-existing list of countries, so his defenders can pretend for a little while that is really no different than what Obama did. Giuliani was proudly declaring on TV that the intent here was to ban Muslims, and this was just the mechanism they though they could get through the courts right now.

Yes, but many hardcore, hawkish, national security anti-Muslim types are big admirers of Israel and how they conduct national security. The fact that the Trump administration is more hardcore than even those people is pretty scary.

I get what you're trying to say Brian. I think it's a relevant point when multiple people are saying Trump picked Muslim nations and left out the ones he had business interests in. Was pretty curious why those specific countries were on the list.

Well, at least he didn't remove the Director of National Intelligence and Joint Chiefs of Staff from security meetings so he could appoint a racist wife-beater.

I'm honestly worried the US will fall into a dictatorship within the next two years. I thought maybe Michael Flynn would be a man of morals given his service, but that he would allow this to happen without a peep speaks volumes.

This Bannon-Trump marriage has the feeling of that time Putin got his dentist "elected."

Mike Flynn? He might still be very competent in a narrow job, but he went off the deep end awhile ago on broader topics like Giuliani. Mattis & John Kelly are the two national security appointees I still trust until proven otherwise.

I'm definitely aware that your are not one of the people I'm referring to in my post. I know you did not support Trump and do not support this ban.


What I'm saying is there is a significant overlap between people who are pro-life, anti-BLM (and shout "All Lives Matter), and who also support this ban. My post was mocking/attacking those people and not the many people who oppose the EO.

Ok...he's lashing out against the McCain/Graham joint statement. Standard Trump fare. But....

The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong - they are sadly weak on immigration. The two...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

...Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

...how are they "always looking to start World War III?" What does that even mean?

I don't think it would ever get that crazy but Bannon is a creepy dude. Read up on his talks about wanting to "destroy the state" and being a Leninist. He does believe in turning the country into a one-party Authoritarian state. Not sure the public would get behind that.

I think he meant it figuratively, as in when you argue with something someone said and they get irritated - "Let's not make it World War 3". He's frustrated that they always get on his case about something he did or said. It would've been funnier if he said, "Let's not make a federal case out of it."

A lot of people(Russian bots?) on the alt-right hate McCain and Graham and do see them as literal warmongers.

Ahhhhh..ok. I can buy that explanation. And I've probably used that metaphor or a similar one in conversation myself. But when you and the people you are talking about could actually have, you know, major influence in *actually* starting World War III, it's kind of an odd one to use. ;)