Muslim Ban

My Recent Posts

A policy is discriminatory if the following is true:

  • The policy affects a certain group of people disproportionately when compared to its effects on other groups of people.
  • The reasoning for the policy doesn’t match the changes enacted by said policy.
  • A similar less-extreme policy already exists, in whole or in part.
  • A significant amount of people affected by this policy share a similar characteristic, though not all people sharing aforementioned characteristic are affected by said policy.

Trump’s Muslim ban:

  • All seven nations affected by Trump’s travel ban are majority-Muslim nations. Also, Trump specifically made an exception for refugees of minority religions within their respective nations.
  • Trump repeatedly talks about the need to increase security and to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States. The countries included in the ban are responsible for only a small amount of terror-related charges on U.S. soil. Refugees have perpetrated zero attacks on U.S. soil for at least twenty-five years. Most of the non-US citizens responsible for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil including the perpetrators of 9/11 are from countries not included in the ban. In fact, the largest percent of suspects responsible for terror-related attacks in the U.S. are committed by US citizens.
  • Donald Trump talks about vetting anyone and everyone who tries to enter the United States. The U.S. already has one of the most stringent immigration policies in the world, and its refugee process is incredibly involved as well taking anywhere between 18 to 24 months to complete.
  • This is similar to the first requirement but has an important distinction. A majority of people affected by the ban are Muslim; though not all Muslims are affected.

This is a textbook example of dog whistling. America has done this for centuries with the “war on crime” and the “war on crime:part 2” and the “war on drugs”. It’s the natural evolution of outright racism.

 

We tend to bounce around between minorities depending on the President and policy, but surprisingly policies like Trump’s Muslim ban are evident on both sides to some degree. (I am fully aware this list of seven nations technically originated from Obama).

 

This is why we need an objective definition of discrimination as relates to policy. I propose the one I mentioned above. What do you think? Any suggestions?

Comments

Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 14, 2017 - 2:51am
Sad little snowflake doesn't get that non-citizens not in DUHmerica have no rights under the constitution as it doesn't fucking apply to them. 
 
Trump is not the first president to single out specific nationalities regards immigration. 
 
One suggest snowflake move to Europe or Scandi where immigration is so wildly successful and he can be culturally enriched to his snowflake desire. 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Feb 14, 2017 - 5:19am
Jeffry
 
You bet. Sometimes I don't know where I am LOL
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 7:01am
Jeffry: Why are you so condescending? I get that you are scared to actually critique my arguments, but why do you feel it's necessary? Maybe, it's because you realize you don't really have any arguments and you have to beef up your critiques instead with 3rd grade level names and puns? Lol
 
Non-citizens in the United States do have constitutional rights though, and the ban clearly affects them as well. Also, presidents in the past have also proven specific danger as the reason for limiting immigration. Trump can't even do that. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 14, 2017 - 7:28am
Non-citizens in the United States do have constitutional rights though
 
Never said they don't snowflake. What's yer fuckin' point? 
 
Trump's EO prevented immigrants not yet in DUHmerica from going there. DUH. 
 
I'm condescending because you're a pathetic snowflake that hasn't acquired the necessary life experience to hold forth on the theories you have been inculcated with.
 
When the academy churned out brand new 3rd mates every year they came aboard thinking they were fully qualified seamen when all they really were was dangerous and there to make mistakes.
 
You're less than they were by a country mile. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 8:39am
Okay, so what your saying is that you're terrified of engaging in a real conversation about politics. Well, once you put on your big boy pants and want to have a real debate let me know. Thanks!
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 14, 2017 - 8:48am
What I'm saying you pisspot snowflake useless bag of skin is you're full of stupid and everyone knows stupid can't be fixed. Debate? Hilarious, you don't want a debate or you'd have answered my challenges to your nonsense rather than deflect. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 9:13am
What challenges? You didn't provide any challenges. You said the ban applied only to immigrants outside the United States. That's false. It also affected many non-citizens within the United States as well as many organizations and companies within the United States.
 
Try again, bud. 
Billy Roper Added Feb 14, 2017 - 9:14am
Non-citizens in the U.S. are only affected by the travel ban if they are from one of the seven third-world countries which the Obama administration and congress labeled as being the most dangerous and in need of greater vetting, and they leave the country and want back in. The solution is simple. They should leave and not come back.
Dino Manalis Added Feb 14, 2017 - 9:18am
We should only ban terrorists with better screening and intelligence around the world.  Everyone has to be screened anywhere they come from, including Canada and Mexico, regardless of religion.  
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 9:22am
Billy: The only thing Obama and Congress did was remove these countries from the Visa Waiver program. It required people coming from these countries to get appropriate visas. It's not nearly as extreme as what Trump is attempting to do with this Muslim ban. 
 
So so are you suggesting just a mass deportation of everyone hailing from those countries? That seems beyond extreme and incredibly ineffective. 
Mike Haluska Added Feb 14, 2017 - 9:26am
Robert - the very fact that our population isn't a perfect blend with all portions exactly equal means that EVERYTHING IS DISCRIMINATORY!  You discriminate every day and don't even realize it.  For example, do you cash your paycheck at a nearby bank or a bank located in the worst part of town? 
In regard to prevention of terrorists from entering the country, we HAVE TO DISCRIMINATE otherwise we have to check every single person which is physically impossible!  If you have a problem with the nations selected, talk to President Obama - his administration made the list!   
Douglas Proudfoot Added Feb 14, 2017 - 10:25am
Robert: For an opposing viewpoint based on what the law is, rather than what progressives would like the law to be, please read my post: 
9th Circuit Says They Need Proof of Terrorism
I don't think any of your emotional arguments are valid if applied to potential immigrants to the US who have never been here before.  In the effort to save Soviet Jewry, the US admitted them in a program that required less documentation of persecution than required for ordinary refugees.  Nobody complained at that time that the policy discriminated based on religion.  It did, but the persecution was based on religion, so it was logical that the refugee program would too.
 
The fact is that Yazidis and Christians can't live in UN Syrian refugee camps because Muslims will kill them if they do.  If the US is admitting refugees from Syria,  Yazidis and Christians should be given preference because they are more severely threatened. 
 
There are also thousands of Muslim translators who worked and fought helping US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These translators were promised US visas for themselves and their families.  Thousands are still waiting.  Some have been killed while waiting.  Translators should be at the head of the line, before any refugees. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 11:42am
Douglas Proudfoot: I'm really not sure whether your arguing for or against the ban. Anyway, I do agree that those translators you are referring to absolutely deserve visas for their service. The travel ban affected them as well. I don't get why you think helping refugees and helping these translators are mutually exclusive. In fact, those are two separate processes all together. 
 
As far as referencing Christians and Yazidis, they have been admitted on a regular basis from Syria and Iraq and many other countries. Why do they need the special exemption now?
 
Tom C. Purcell: Wow, definitely disagree with you there, but okay. 
 
Mike Haluska: It's a balancing act between competing public interests and your comparison to where I desposit my money is a false equivalency.
 
Its more like a bank being robbed by a white guy and then subsequently banning all Asian women from doing business with them. 
 
Anyway, yes, there is absolutely a need to protect our country and borders, but there is also a very real public interest in not discriminating against people. It's wrong and it's arguably more harmful to our security and prosperity than if we didn't have the ban. 
 
I think the proof that this ban stems more from a place of ineffective political theater than from any real effort to boost our security comes from the fact that none of the countries banned had any role in 9/11 and the amount of terrorist attacks perpetrated by refugees or even immigrants from these countries is incredibly small to begin with, almost non-existent. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 14, 2017 - 11:50am
Steven Gern, a 10-year veteran of the Marine Corps working in Iraq, uploaded a video (below) to his Facebook page on Wednesday talking about President Trump's immigration order and Gern's own experiences asking locals how Americans are dealt with in the countries that were on the watch list. Here's the transcript of Gern's viral statement: “I work currently in Iraq, which is one of the countries that’s on the list. Obviously, in the United States, a lot is going on – and over here, this is a lot going on, as well, just a lot of things y’all don’t see. The other morning, we were having a discussion on the executive order, and a lot of the Iraqis showed their displeasure in this executive order, and why they feel like they’ve been betrayed by the United States... So, I listened to what they had to say, and after they were done yelling and screaming about their opinion on things, I asked a simple question, and I got an answer to that simple question, and I got it without hesitation. My simple questions was, ‘As an American, if I went out in town right now, would I be welcome?' They answered me, and said, ‘Absolutely not, you would not be welcome.’ And I said, ‘Okay, what would happen if I went in town?'” They said the locals would snatch me up and kill me within an hour. I would be tortured first, and after they were done torturing me, I would probably be beheaded. It would go on video for everybody to see as an example. The point I’m trying to make is – this is the local populace that would do this. This isn’t ISIS. This isn’t al-Qaeda. So, my question to them was pretty simple after that. If you would do this to me, in your country, why would I let you in my country? All this means to me is that if you had the opportunity to take the life of an American, you would do it. Maybe that’s something y’all need to think about back there. If this is the way some of these cultures feel… about Americans, why would you be so naive to believe that, if they came to the United States, they would do anything any different than what they would do right here in their own country” I’m just trying to inform you about what’s actually happening on the ground in one of the ‘banned countries’ – something you should probably think about. I can’t go out in town here. Why should they go out in town in my country?”
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 12:09pm
Billy Roper Added Feb 14, 2017 - 12:10pm
Robert, How would the mass deportation of Muslims not be effective in stopping crimes and acts of terror perpetuated by Muslims?  These are the folks who want to throw people like you off of buildings, remember.
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 12:24pm
Billy Roper: You are wrong. Not all Muslim people want to "throw people off buildings" just like I'm sure not all Trump Supporters like shooting up churches and mosques
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 14, 2017 - 12:38pm
Let's chip in for a one way ticket to Iraq, Syria or any of the the other five countries for this idiot so he can fulfill his deeply seated need to become culturally enriched Billy. 
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 12:42pm
I would love to go visit. Please do!
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 14, 2017 - 12:45pm
Its one way. You can/will never go back to DUHmerica. Ever. You wouldn't make it out of the terminal alive. But hey, you get to walk the walk not just talk the talk.
Billy Roper Added Feb 14, 2017 - 1:58pm
Maybe he can find out why the five richest gulf states, all Muslim, have taken in ZERO refugees.
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 2:21pm
Countries not on Trump's list....
Billy Roper Added Feb 14, 2017 - 3:27pm
Hey, we could add them, if that would make you feel better.
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 3:41pm
I doubt he would. He has business in all those countries. I wouldn't want him to put his business in jeopardy. Apparently, we've finally found an adequate price for American lives. 
wsucram15 Added Feb 14, 2017 - 4:20pm
Robert, listen I am in DC once or twice a week now. Pay attention to the things Congress (republican) is doing and not as much the sensationalized media.
As always this is smoke and mirrors for something far more destructive later on, such as voters rights.
We have HR 151 but we also have Congress who in essence repealed voting rights act by eliminating the Election Assistance Commission which was THE ONLY FAILSAFE during the hacking of actual voting machines in 2016. Created in 2000, to fail safe the technical part of voting, it has now been eliminated.  On February 8, 2017 on a party line vote Republicans called this fluff and eliminated the technical protection for future elections.
Also there is current legislation to eliminate Department of Education and the repeal as I am sure you have seen has begun to the PPACA without any replacement of any kind.
 
You have so much more coming at you than a Muslim ban and if you dont pay attention, you wont be able to change it.
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 4:32pm
weucram15: Oh, I know. The Muslim ban is just one instance in a long line of abuses. I've seen the bill concerning the elimination of the Department of Education and the one concerning the ACA.
 
I did did not know about the Election Assistance Program. Thanks for he heads up! I will be calling my senators and Representatives immediately.
Robert Potter Added Feb 14, 2017 - 4:33pm
*wsucram15 is what I meant. Damn autocorrect on phones! 
wsucram15 Added Feb 14, 2017 - 5:13pm
Do that..its done, but the pushback as you know is important and not many people know about this.  I am getting things here and there.  I always have but not like now.
People, I mean US citizens rights are in trouble for some reason.  I think its a change in governmental policy completely, regarding human rights, but thats really a reach on my part.  Its just the feeling I get, for now, its just party line policy because the WH is very inexperienced in what they are doing.
I think we will be protesting and in court often.  Its ok Robert..my name is Jeanne, thats just a writing name I use on here for the people that show no respect. 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Feb 14, 2017 - 5:31pm
What hypocrit bullshit this is. The ones who prepared that shit, 9/11 and so on, were the US government and its allies - the Sauds, the Emirates and such.
 
The ones who are NOT concerned by the ban.
 
Please....the whole world figures that !
Peter Corey Added Feb 14, 2017 - 5:40pm
>Not all Muslim people want to "throw people off buildings"
 
True, but the majority of those who do want to throw people off buildings have been, in fact, Muslim. Since we can't see into the heart and mind of individuals, a general ban might not be a bad idea.
 
How much jihadist terrorism on U.S. soil are you comfortable accepting as "the new normal": none; a few incidents now and then; a lot"?
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Feb 14, 2017 - 5:42pm
a general ban might not be a bad idea.
 
Good idea. That will radicalize the millions of Muslims already living in the US :-)
wsucram15 Added Feb 14, 2017 - 5:50pm
Stone I said that somewhere else on here..that the UAE and Saudi werent included and should have been.
The ban if at all..should have been for everyone if actually accessing incoming threats.  But it wasnt and thats the point.
wsucram15 Added Feb 14, 2017 - 5:56pm
SEF..the President has the right to access the situation and change visa and immigration into the US, its not smart, but he has that right.  He cant do it based on religion, race, etc.  Also only for people that currently are visa holders, work in the US, or are currently located in the US, which is another current issue going on here.   We are having people randomly expelled in a wide net, only approximately 70-75% have records. Now thats a news report...we will see the stats when we can get them and the suits are filed.  If there is legal standing.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Feb 14, 2017 - 6:13pm
should have been for everyone if actually accessing incoming threats
 
That's what I say. But after all: The US IS responsible for those refugees so they would have a moral obligation to accept them. As the Saudis and the Emirates have..
Peter Corey Added Feb 14, 2017 - 6:21pm
> That will radicalize the millions of Muslims already living in the US :-)
 
How do you know that?
 
Historically, you're incorrect. Though incarcerating Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor was a violation of their rights, there was no evidence that the policy "radicalized" other Japanese-Americans who had already been living in the US for some time.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Feb 14, 2017 - 7:11pm
How do you know that?
 
Because I lived in Muslim countries for years and I know their mentality and way of thinking.
Peter Corey Added Feb 14, 2017 - 9:24pm
>Because I lived in Muslim countries for years and I know their mentality and way of thinking.
 
Aside from being an arrogant response, it's anecdotal. It's also irrelevant: the way a rank-and-file Muslim in Yemen thinks is not necessarily the way a Muslim immigrant to the U.S. might think.
 
Regarding the arrogance of omniscience you just displayed above, weren't you the one who complained that the main problem with Jews in your opinion is their arrogance? I see it's rubbed on you. Probably from all the Jews you socialize with.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 14, 2017 - 11:58pm
Douglas Proudfoot Added Feb 15, 2017 - 1:03am
Robert: Christians were 0.5% of the 12,587 Syrian refugees admitted to the US in 2016.  Before the war started, they were 10% of the population.  The reason Christians and Yazidis need preference is that they have a much higher risk of being murdered if they do not get out of the Middle East quickly.  They literally can't wait. 
 
I think the ban is legal.  I am not sure if it's wise, but that's not an issue the courts should decide.  The roll out was horrible, and should have been much better organized.  However, the Obamacare roll out was a bigger train wreck and the 9th Circuit didn't issue an injunction against it.
 
I think the judicial system is illegally trying to subvert the 2016 election outcome.  Trump was elected president using the same electoral college mechanism that elected George Washington in 1789.  The law says the president can stop immigration any time for national security reasons.  The 9th Circuit says that Trump's national security reasons are not good enough unless they see more evidence.  The 9th Circuit says that if the Obama Administration saw no reason to ban entry from the 7 countries in 2016, then Trump must show what's changed in 2017 to make the ban urgent now.  I think what's changed is that Trump was elected president and it's his decision to make now, by law.  If it shouldn't be, change the law in Congress.  I don't see how the Constitution grants rights to foreign people, who are not now, nor have ever been, in the US.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 15, 2017 - 1:32am
 I don't see how the Constitution grants rights to foreign people, who are not now, nor have ever been, in the US.
 
Damn straight!
 
I have lived in several countries not of my birth or nationality for several decades now. I am a guest in their country and take the position that I have no rights whatsoever in my host country. If I am troubled enough by how my hosts run their country I am free to leave. 
 
I don't expect anything from them and fulfill their requirements of me. 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Feb 15, 2017 - 12:20pm
Peter
 
Aside from being an arrogant response,
 
So you mean knowing something by experience is arrogant ? Ok, then LOL
 
the way a rank-and-file Muslim in Yemen thinks is not necessarily the way a Muslim immigrant to the U.S. might think.
 
Did I say that ? I talk of the African / Middle East Muslim guy on the street and not about some brainwashed extremists.
 
But since I know that you don't like my overall POV anyway. You just like to interpret stuff in my comments to your gusto. So let's leave it at that.
 
Calling me arrogant could fire back, since I have the impression that your comments have the same tendency then...
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Feb 15, 2017 - 12:23pm
BTW:
 
weren't you the one who complained that the main problem with Jews in your opinion is their arrogance? I see it's rubbed on you. Probably from all the Jews you socialize with.
 
See what I mean ? Switching the subject to rant some more. Dude, you don't get it. Where did I say that ? Copy and paste that and I rub the reply in your face....
Peter Corey Added Feb 15, 2017 - 9:35pm
>So you mean knowing something by experience is arrogant ? Ok, then LOL
 
You made a general comment about ALL Muslims. When you make a comment based on experience, you have to limit the statement to those specific individuals with whom you actually interacted. Otherwise you're just being arrogant.
 
This is what you posted earlier:
 
>Because I lived in Muslim countries for years and I know their mentality and way of thinking.
 
That statement was meant to apply to all Muslims, right? Yes, I think so.
Tamara Wilhite Added Feb 16, 2017 - 10:37pm
Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order
http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order


Senate Report: 380 of 580 Terrorism Cases From 2001-2014 Involved Foreign-Born Islamists
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/23/unprecedented-assimilation-problem-senators-warn-obama-refugee-terror-threat
Ryan Messano Added Feb 17, 2017 - 1:44am