Trump Thread

[Pannonian]

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

It's discrimination based on citizenship. I browse a Pakistani forum from time to time, and the posters there were surprised they weren't already on the list, given their reputation, and expected to be added once India put their two cents in. The Pakistani Brits said that this was the signal for them to give up their Pakistani citizenship, which would remove the black mark. They also drew a comparison between Pakistan, which allows dual citizenship, and India, which does not, and wondered whether the latter path was better.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's discrimination based on citizenship. I browse a Pakistani forum from time to time, and the posters there were surprised they weren't already on the list, given their reputation, and expected to be added once India put their two cents in. The Pakistani Brits said that this was the signal for them to give up their Pakistani citizenship, which would remove the black mark. They also drew a comparison between Pakistan, which allows dual citizenship, and India, which does not, and wondered whether the latter path was better.

Discrimination based on citizenship is generally deemed legitimate.

See Germany's stance of citizens of Syria claiming refugee status.

[Kralizec]

Discrimination based on citizenship is generally deemed legitimate.

See Germany's stance of citizens of Syria claiming refugee status.

Generally?
The justification that some of his surrogates have put forth is that the countries involved have previously been designated as potential sources of terrorism during the Obama administration. Superficially, that would seem like a good reason.

It's fairly obvious however that the measure is only intended to placate those voters who were attracted to his promise of a Muslim ban. A proposal that was a flagrant violation of the US constitution.

They put hardly any effort at all in arguing there's a serious, urgent need for the measure (the USA already had an extremely thorough vetting process to begin with) and implemented it overnight, without any regard for people who'd been through weeks (if not months) of paperwork and would end up being turned away at the airport.

Maybe the order will largely survive constitutional review in the end. Regardless it's a meanspirited measure, and dishonest in its motivations (since it's only aimed at keeping campaign promises, not genuine security concerns)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Generally?
The justification that some of his surrogates have put forth is that the countries involved have previously been designated as potential sources of terrorism during the Obama administration. Superficially, that would seem like a good reason.

It's fairly obvious however that the measure is only intended to placate those voters who were attracted to his promise of a Muslim ban. A proposal that was a flagrant violation of the US constitution.

They put hardly any effort at all in arguing there's a serious, urgent need for the measure (the USA already had an extremely thorough vetting process to begin with) and implemented it overnight, without any regard for people who'd been through weeks (if not months) of paperwork and would end up being turned away at the airport.

Maybe the order will largely survive constitutional review in the end. Regardless it's a meanspirited measure, and dishonest in its motivations (since it's only aimed at keeping campaign promises, not genuine security concerns)

The countries in question are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

With the exception of Iran those countries are all going through massive unrest or are in a state of systemic collapse. Trump see Iran as an enemy of the US. By contract Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are fairly stable internally and nominally US Allies.

I agree with you this is mean spirited and primarily a political move but I don't think it's a crude domestically targeted one. Someone thought quite hard about this - by making is virtually impossible for people from these countries to enter the US you send the message that these people are not welcome.