Immigration

Is Trump's #MuslimBan a Muslim Ban?

Not exactly, but it overwhelmingly affects Muslims and gives preference to Christian refugees.

|

White House

President Trump says Twitter is wrong about the executive order he signed on Friday. "This is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting," he said in a statement yesterday. "This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe." Trump is right in the sense that his order does not ban all Muslim visitors, as he suggested during his presidential campaign. The order nevertheless will mainly affect Muslims.

The seven countries covered by Trump's 90-day ban on visitors—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—all have overwhelmingly Muslim majorities, ranging from 90 percent (Syria) to nearly 100 percent (Somalia). The people covered by Trump's 120-day ban on refugees (and his reduction in the maximum number of refugees to be accepted this year from 110,000 to 50,000) are more religiously mixed. Muslims accounted for 46 percent of the 85,000 refugees admitted to the U.S. last year. But almost all of the people affected by Trump's indefinite ban on Syrian refugees are Muslims, who accounted for 99 percent of refugees from that country in 2016.

The religious bias of Trump's order is compounded by its preference for refugees who face persecution as members of religious minorities. People who fit that description get a leg up in case-by-case exemptions from the refugee moratorium and in admission after the refugee program resumes. That group would consist mainly of Christians in the case of Muslim-majority countries, although it also might include Muslims from countries such as Burma. As Matt Welch noted on Saturday, Trump himself emphasizes that he is trying to help Christians. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who criticized Trump's order yesterday, said it is "not explicitly a religious test" but "comes close to one," which "is inconsistent with our American character."

Still, Trump's #MuslimBan is a far cry from his recommendation following the 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, when he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Trump reiterated that idea after the deadly attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando last June. But a month later, his "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" became a suspension of "immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place." That language was both narrower, in that it did not cover Muslims from countries not "compromised by terrorism," and broader, in that it covered everyone from countries "compromised by terrorism," regardless of religion. Since it was not clear what "compromised by terrorism" meant, it was anybody's guess whether the net effect was to decrease or increase the number of people affected.

In a July 24 interview on Meet the Press, Trump presented the switch as if it were more rhetorical than real:

I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. "Oh, you can't use the word Muslim!" Remember this. And I'm OK with that, because I'm talking territory instead of Muslim.

Given his own admission that he wanted to achieve his Muslim ban by a different name, Trump's critics can perhaps be forgiven for concluding that is what he is doing now. But compared to the ban he was urging a year ago, his executive order is both overinclusive (since half of the refugees it covers are not Muslims) and underinclusive (since it does not cover Muslims who are not refugees and do not come from any of the seven specified countries).

The ACLU nevertheless thinks the order can be challenged as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. "The smoking gun they put in the executive order is the idea that they would grant exceptions for minority religions," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told The New York Times. "The one thing you can't do under the Establishment Clause is denomination favoritism. That's a very promising claim, but it requires the right plaintiff."

Addendum: Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani says the president's order was a way of reframing the Muslim ban to make it less controversial. "When he first announced it," Giuliani told Jeanine Pirro on Fox News, "he said 'Muslim ban.' He called me up, he said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'…What we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger: the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis." Except that the seven countries on Trump's list do not actually correspond to the nationalities of people who have carried out terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001.

NEXT: What happened when detained travelers challenged the Trump administration's latest executive order

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Not exactly, but it overwhelmingly affects Muslims and gives preference to Christian refugees.”

    Not exactly ? What does that mean.

    The answer is NO it isn’t a ban on Muslims thought it may affect the more than others.

    1. Right. If we were to, say, place travel restrictions on countries with a highly contagious disease spreading, and that ban had a disproportionate effect on black people, because they didn’t have as much access to medical care as others, could you say we were banning blacks from entering the country?

      No, you could not. You’d be called an idiot, and rightfully so.

      1. Correct. But if you previously made statements about wanting to keep black people out and then made exceptions to the above rule that fell pretty strictly along racial lines, people might reasonably conclude that you were trying to find a way to make good on your earlier statements.

        1. So if you were to say “This medical crisis is affecting black people in these countries, and we shouldn’t allow them in here”, then later created a policy that kept the same black people out of our country, you’re a racist?

          1. No, if you are not fully on board with the progressive agenda, you are racist. I thought everyone knew this.

            1. Of course. And only a progressive knows what is in our hearts.

          2. If the crisis were affecting everyone (as I am sure you know plenty of Muslims are victims of terrorism) and you crafted rules that gave preferential treatment to whites after previously saying you wanted to keep blacks out, then people would have a good reason to think you were trying to take a roundabout way to keeping blacks out.

            1. But there’s about a billion Muslims in other countries around the world not impacted in the slightest by this. How can it be an anti-Muslim policy when it impacts only a very small fraction of Muslims world-wide?

        2. These 7 countries are not something Trump came up with. These countries were on a list that Obama had restricted travel 2 years ago and is still in force today. The media won’t talk about that. Also there are 40 more countries made up of a majority of Muslims, so, no, this is not a ban on Muslims.

          1. Yup.

            If it was banning Muslims, I’d expect Indonesia, say.

            Or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    2. These were all Obama designated countries. More can be added and adjustments made. The ninnies of the Left are knowing liars when they claim it only affects muslims.

      1. Ah, we’ve reached the conservative version of ‘Bush did it too’ on just over a week. I eagerly look forward to all the things that can now be justified by the fact that the guy you hated did/approved them.

        1. Relevant to the question of Muslim ban. If it’s a Muslim ban, then it’s a longstanding one.

        2. More to the point is: Obama did nearly the exact same thing in 2011. Where were the protests and celebrity pants-shitting then?

          This doesn’t excuse Trump’s actions, it points to the hypocrisy of the brainwashed left.

          1. Plenty of excuses are being put forward to “explain” how Obama’s action in 2011 is nothing like Trump’s actions. They mostly boil down to “It was OK when Obama did it, because he was something like a god.”

          2. Remember that Obama’s 2011 action was based on the fact that the Administration allowed a number of people in as “refugees” who had in fact committed terrorist actions, killed US troops, been detained in Iraq for planting roadside bombs, and HAD FINGERPRINTS on BOMBS we recovered!

            But they checked the box saying “I’m not a terrorist.” on the form, so they were allowed in. And some of them lived in public housing on welfare.

            Happily at least one MSM covered this back in the day.

            http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/…..d=20931131

    3. Exactly correct, hpearce.

      You stole my comment.

  2. “The one thing you can’t do under the Establishment Clause is denomination favoritism. That’s a very promising claim, but it requires the right plaintiff.”

    I just think this is bullshit. During WWII, we should have let the German Jews in, but we shouldn’t have taken in every German. Jews, Christians, and Yazidis should be getting preferential treatment.

    1. I think the issues is that the EO seems to give religious refugees preference over other refugees. I posed a hypothetical last night – what if atheists were being targeted? Or liberal Muslims? To use your example, we should have been taking in German Jews, but should we have favored them over the other groups the Nazis persecuted?

      1. Islam is just as much a political ideology as it is a religion.

        1. Many Muslims do not differentiate between political ideology and religion. Some do. Regardless, I fail to see how it’s relevant to the point I made.

          1. You claimed it was religious preference. I’m pointing out that it could just as easily be construed as ideological preference, ie keeping Nazis out of our country during WWII.

            Unless of course, us libertarians want to redefine war each time it doesn’t mesh with our dogmatic ideas on immigration. Last I checked, though, murder droning people is war from a libertarian perspective.

            1. The EO explicitly states there is a preference for religious minorities in the countries that it lists. That’s not my wording.

              1. I don’t deny that.

                Taking in persecuted religious minorities is long standing practice in regards to asylum. Claiming that denying a political ideology because it is also classified as a religion is somehow discriminatory is where I have issue. What if the Nazism was a religion? Would our hands have been tied then? It would be a ridiculous argument to claim that we shouldn’t “discriminate” against the religion of Nazism.

              2. Of course the EO states there is a preference for religious minorities, those people are in a greater danger of being beheaded or forced into slavery.

        2. More so

        3. Islam is a religion of peace.

          And Brutus is an honorable man.

      2. This. It’s a complex idea, and Trump et al act as if it’s super easy to judge individuals by their demographics.

        Here’s a ferrexample. Let’s say Schindler got out with a group of fleeing Jews. Does Roosevelt have the Jews accepted and turn away Schindler because he’s not the right kind of refugee?

        Tell me y’all wouldn’t want Oskar Schindler here.

        I could be fine with the emphasis on persecuted Christians fleeing the area. There’s a need, and Trump’s not wrong in that. So long as we know we aren’t screwing people who don’t happen to be Christian. The treatment of interpreters and military assistants does not sit well.

        I think it was CBK on the Fisher thread who mentioned most of the wince-worthy aspects of this were just piss-poor planning. There are things here and there which seem perfectly sensible about this. There must have been a less jackass way to do this.

        1. Here’s the thing from my perspective:

          If he gave a buffer time, and terrorists did come in and attack during that time, Trump looks really bad for giving them a heads up.

          If, after the Democrats reversed this order by losing their collective minds, a terrorist attack does happen, the blame is placed solely on the Democrats and Trump wins big politically.

          The chances of a terrorist attack happening are very small, but I’m assuming the Trump administration did not want to chance it, at least until they could shed all blame in the case it did.

          1. Given the number of incidents over the last few years, I would say there is a ver y good chance the US gets hit again.

          2. I dunno. This makes sense, yes, but was the piss-poor planning really just… a lack of time?

            Let’s add in another element. This administration is new at this, playing on a hostile field, and they plain fucked up. Mistakes were made, by them. Time, yes, time and timing were factors. They also didn’t have all their ducks in a row – not because they’re dicks, not because they’re incompetent, but because they’re new at this.

            If this is so, then the few mistakes of piss-poor planning will be corrected and probably not repeated in future as they learn the fine detail of governance minus the bureaucratic playtime bullshit.

            1. Yes, I could definitely see them misjudging the firestorm that would be created by a few thousand people being inconvenienced for a few days.

              They should have seen that coming with the open hostility of the media, for sure, and they should have planned for a much smoother transition to the travel ban, if not for any other reason than it would be the right thing to do. On the other hand, I’m not sure how you keep a lid on it, really, if the goal is to not create a window where terrorists could enter the country before the vetting process was adjusted.

              1. What if they saw that coming and did it because they knew the media and the left would overreact, exaggerate, and end up blowing everything out of porportion?

                I am starting to wonder if there is a method to some of this madness, and if there is, while I am loving the pants shitting, I am worried where this eventually leads to.

              2. Right off the top of my head, the administration could have taken special care of Iraqi collaborators and paraded that around during press conferences. The MSM would still be freaking about a Muslim ban, because that’s their (failing) profit model, but maybe Trump’s better off ignoring those buggers and letting them continue to have enough rope to hang themselves.

                If it’s just a matter of optics, then flashing good guy credentials would have been helpful. I hate to keep banging the interpreter drum, but that’s the point that really stuck in my craw, and I can imagine there’s military folks out there who feel the same. Some of us aren’t happy with being welchers, and this is the MSM’s perfect opportunity to drag that out onto the stage.

                But then, if our theories are dove-tailing with reality, these isolated incidences of bad choices on the part of the administration will be worked out over the next week or so.

                So. Wait and see?

              3. Yes there is a fire storm over this, but the fact is George Soros is funding the leaders of these protests. Even the MSM admitted this. So are they a impulse protests or Soros protests? Soros needs to be arrested and charged with sedition.

            2. My biggest complaint on this is that it affects green card holders and H1B holders who have been here for 5-10 years. It seems like undue burden, for the risk that a 10 year resident might radicalize abroad and return.

              Travel visas and new H1B’s *sort of* make sense, at least until we can be sure that our vetting process works.

        2. Tell me y’all wouldn’t want Oskar Schindler here.

          I certainly would not want Oskar Schindler here. Um…. Who’s Oskar Shchindler?

      3. It’s an order “to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”

        If atheism is a religion, it’s covered under this.

        1. Nearly every religion is covered by this…except Islam, which is nice

          1. A fair enforcement of the plain reading of the EO would cover Islam as well, in such areas as mentioned in the article (Burma, where there’s been some persecution of Muslims). Depending how you slice it, it may even cover Muslims in the Middle East, such as Shia’s being persecuted in a majority Sunni nation or vice versa.

      4. If you are going to complain about preferential treatment, “refugees” get preferential treatment over other kinds of immigrants. Instigating a pecking order on which refugees face the greatest potential for persecution in their home countries is not outlandish.

    2. “we should have let the German Jews in, but we shouldn’t have taken in every German.”

      Yeah, because ~only~ the Jews suffered under the Nazis, apparently.

    3. Isn’t this the same ACLU that thinks it’s perfectly acceptable under the establishment clause for the government to force Christians to bake wedding cakes? And to have the government force employers, some of whom may be atheists to whom the very notion of religion is repugnant, to amend their work rules at the demand of an employee to “accommodate” The employee’s religious beliefs?

  3. “Gives preference to Christian refugees”

    I know right? Just because they are less likely to kill themselves. UGH

  4. Special rights for Christians is the libertarian way. I learned it at H&R.

    1. Special rights to refugees fleeing genocide is the libertarian way. Hating Christians just because and therefore being unmoved by their slaughter is the cocktail libertarian way.

      Fail Rataxes

      1. Not favoring my religion is hating it!

        1. That seems to be more or less the definition of Islamaphobia

        2. Not showing favoritism toward those who face genocide, because it’s ‘woke’ is just stupidity

          1. The idea that Christian minorities in other countries are as “privileged” as Christians in the west is abject idiocy, and this is where Hail Retaxes is basing his argument from.

            First, he believes in privilege, second he creates a false equivalency based on this belief.

            Then he comes along and drops his social signaling. Is it any wonder why the vast majority of the commetariat has had enough with these cosmos?

            1. Not sure of the cosmo to yokel ratio. I think the cosmos are more numerous or at least like their leftist kinfolk, they’re louder and prone to lashing out despite their numbers.

        3. When you make a statement like that what you are saying is “You better favor my religion or else”.

        4. Hail Rataxes requires us to see Christians killed in order to avoid privileging them.

      2. Not to be all puritanical, but a narrower libertarian way would be having private organizations sponsor refugees for resettlement, and the government getting out of the way save for security screening.

        1. Wait, isn’t this EO about fixing a problem with the screening going on now?

          1. What problems? You already have an objectively ridiculously low probability of any of these people being a risk (“the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year” per the earlier cite). So what is the Administration going to do in the next 90-120 days that will move that needle? And if that was the plan, throw it into the ‘Ways this was botched” category, you roll out the change, plus at least a sketch of future state at the same time, to short circuit as much bitching as possible.

            Assuming you want to get stuff done, and not just rack up MAGA points.

  5. First you don’t want me to see all Muslims as terrorists but as Muslims. Now you don’t want me see all Somalis as Somalis but as Muslims. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

  6. Hey, remember that time when the Obama administration was discriminated against Christian refugees? Need a refresher?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congr…..n-refugees

    I’m assuming nobody used #christianban, because it wasn’t woke enough.

    1. This is the new “Booossshhh”

  7. The clank of its scribes echoes shadows rising from tunnels ‘neath Reason.

  8. Seeing as the non-Muslim populations in the listed countries are targeted for “ethnic cleansing” or, at a minimum, significant discrimination/persecution, why shouldn’t they get preferential immigration treatment?

    Its not anti-Muslim to do so. Its anti-persecution/ethnic cleansing.

    1. Large parts of the Muslim populations of the listed countries are also so targeted.

      But you knew that.

      1. That’s weird. Last time I checked countries had listed genocide against Christians and Yazidis as occurring. I don’t recall it listing ‘all groups approved by the PC Left’ as under threat of genocide

      2. I wouldn’t want to be Shia in ISIS territory.

        ISIS’ enthusiasm for targeting Shia is why Al Qaeda broke with them.

        1. I wouldn’t want to be a woman or gay in Shia territory.

          I also wouldn’t want to be a Sunni in Shia territory.

          I also wouldn’t want to be a religious minority in Shia territory.

          Both are illiberal, genocidal assholes, no thanks. I’ll take the liberal, non-genocidal ideologies, and leave the others right where they are.

          1. The Shia are moderately less genocidal towards religious minorities at present time. Don’t get me wrong, they’re not wonderful, but in the Sunni vs. Shia debate they come out better on average.

            Hell, Iran has Parliamentary seats reserved for religious minorities.

            1. For sure. Yet, they are also pretty complicit in the genocide taking place in Syria against Sunnis.

              Having the choice of getting punched in the face or punched in the nuts is not much of a choice at all. I stand by my claim they they are both illiberal, genocidal assholes.

              1. I would call Assad’s plan less ‘genocide’ and more ‘cleaning house’. I don’t think his plan is to wipe out the Sunni, just anyone who is against his government (which obviously is majority Sunni, because every other religious group largely wants to be on Assad’s side so he can protect them from the Sunni). In all likelihood the end result of the conflict is probably going to be Assad remaining in power with a diminished and cowed Sunni population.

                1. Where do you cross the line from “cleaning house” to “genocide”, though?

                  Our own treatment of the Natives could be construed as genocide, even though it really wasn’t the intent to completely eradicate them. I think the difference between killing them all until they are so weakened so that you can trample on their rights like they are nothing more than slaves and killing them all until every last one of them is gone is just semantics.

                  1. It’s the very definition of genocide though. I wouldn’t call the native treatment genocidal either, abusive and oppressive but not genocidal (barring a few specific circumstances, Pequots and all that, and those tend to be more cultural genocide than anything else). I tend to hold off on throwing the genocide term around until there’s death camps and ‘work til you die’ labour.

                    Assad isn’t ordering Sunni babies be dashthed against the stones, he’s crushing his opposition in a civil war. It’s going to be brutal and nasty, but we do no favours to ourselves by diminishing the meaning of the word genocide by applying it broadly.

                    1. Ugh the squirrels are atrocious today.

                      Anyway, the Japanese bashed babies off the stones and mounted dead babies on their bayonets in the Philippines.

                      Don’t get me wrong, I see where you’re coming from, words mean things. However, I think by the definition of genocide, the point where war turns to mass murder is what is known as genocide. Sure there is some grey area in there, though.

            2. For sure. Yet, they are also pretty complicit in the genocide taking place in Syria against Sunnis.

              Having the choice of getting punched in the face or punched in the nuts is not much of a choice at all. I stand by my claim they they are both illiberal, genocidal assholes.

              1. Man these squirrels are out to get me today.

            3. Best to keep both Sunni and Shia out of the US completely.

              1. I really like the First Amendment. Other countries don’t have it.

                Other English speaking countries don’t have it. The libel laws, the hate speech laws, they’re all different in the UK, Canada, and Australia specifically because they don’t have the First Amendment.

                The First Amendment isn’t just what makes America great; it’s what makes us American.

                Religious freedom is part of that, and so is the fact that the First Amendment doesn’t grant people any rights that they don’t already have without it. One of the best things about the First Amendment is that it’s a prohibition on the government.

                I consider people who want to undermine the First Amendment to be traitors to the American cause. Never mind the Sunni and the Shia, what are we going to do about the American born shitheads who’s sell the First Amendment short?

                1. Agreed, but I also have some concern for Islamic monsters who additionally want to cut off our heads or set us on fire.

    2. Wiki isn’t the ultimate authority on anything, but it’s a good place to start.

      “The United States is obliged to recognize valid claims for asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. As defined by these agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or place of habitual residence if stateless) who, owing to a fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the state. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The signatories to these agreements are further obliged not to return or “refoul” refugees to the place where they would face persecution.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Asylum_in_the_United_States #Relevant_law_and_procedures

      The fact is that religious persecution is protected grounds for an asylum claim, and minority status within a persecuted religion speaks to that.

      If Trump’s executive order had stated that no preference would be given because of minority status in a religion, that might be illegal.

      1. If Trump’s executive order had stated that no preference would be given because of minority status in a religion, that might be illegal.

        Given my reading of the above, that would only be true if he gave it less than equal preference with the other protected classes.

        1. I don’t understand what you’re saying, but I want to understand.

          1. I might be wrong, but it seems he is claiming that there is some equal protection clause in our refugee and asylum laws in the US.

            This is not the case, nor has it ever been the case. The fact that we have maximum numbers of refugees set by law nullifies this idea right off the bat. The other thing is we have consistently prioritized, by law, certain religious or ethnic groups over others. If he believes the 1st Amendment extends to non-citizens, I can see where he’s coming from, but there is a ton of precedent that says otherwise, and not just in asylum law.

            Apologies LynchPin if I interpreted you wrong.

  9. Just ban them all until further notice. Not only are you on far more solid ground from a legal standpoint, but I’m pretty sure that your average Islamonazi terrorist is smart enough to figure out how to pretend to be a Christian. And lying to their enemies in war is not only authorized in their revolting holy book, it’s practically mandated.

    1. Idiot. Taqiya is a Shia thing. The Sunni believe it is blasphemy and apostasy and use it as justification for disliking the Shia. The terrorists of greatest threat to the US are Sunnis. Sunnis can’t lie about their faith without becoming just as bad as the Shia in the eyes of other Sunni terrorists.

      1. That’s bullcrap. The big philosphical between the Sunnis and Shiites on Taqiyya is that most Sunnis it unacceptable to be used against other Muslims. Shiites sometimes consider it acceptable against to be used against Sunnis, but preferably only under extreme circumstances, probably owing to their historical minority status.

        Sunnis can and do routinely use it against infidels outside the religion in their endless acts of terrorism as a simple matter of course.

        1. Aye, EBS is either outright lying or is ignorant.

          Hard to tell with the current political culture.

        2. “The big philosphical between the Sunnis and Shiites on Taqiyya is that most Sunnis it unacceptable to be used against other Muslims.”

          You and Deven are leaving out (either outright lying or are ignorant) of the bigger important detail where Sunnis also find it unacceptable unless under /duress/. A Sunni can’t lie unless they are being tortured to renounce their faith. IE the only type of deception permitted for something like crossing borders is Shia exclusive.

      2. Incidentally, Christianity had an argument about that very same subject when they were being persecuted by the Romans. Whether you could lie about your religion was the real subject of the apocryphal Book of Judas that was recently discovered.

        The official policy of the nascent church was that lying about being a Christian before the Roman tribunal was to deny Christ and probably meant disfellowship. There were Christians who rebelled against that (hence the Book of Judas) saying that Jesus died so that they didn’t have to.

        1. That was also a big debate once Constantine took over. The church had to decide what to do with all these people that hid their faith for fear of death. IIRC, they may have required a nominal penance, but it was resolved in the favor of those who lied.

  10. The ACLU nevertheless thinks the order can be challenged as a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. “The smoking gun they put in the executive order is the idea that they would grant exceptions for minority religions,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told The New York Times. “The one thing you can’t do under the Establishment Clause is denomination favoritism. That’s a very promising claim, but it requires the right plaintiff.”

    That sounds like a quite a stretch of the Establishment Clause.

    1. Being unmoved by Christian slaughter, because Christians are not ‘hip’, is totally cool now. Get with the times.

      1. I’m pretty certain the BOR does not apply to immigrants who are not within the jurisdiction of the U.S.*

        Even if it did, I’m almost certain that “rational basis” instead of “strict scrutiny” would apply, and given the heavy burden of convincing courts that the government has no rational basis for its action, ACLU’s argument would not carry the day.

        *Those stuck at the airports would be.

  11. Arguing that this policy amounts to religious discrimination is like arguing that a policy is racist because it lacks equality of outcome. Can we not end ObamaCare if its beneficiaries are disproportionately black and Latino?

    Trump’s order does not specifically discriminate by religion and, in fact, takes pains to say that cases will be decided on an individual basis.

    While it’s true that the order says that preference will be given to religious minorities, I believe minority status is a standard basis for an asylum claim in both U.S. and international law. This order adds nothing novel to asylum proceedings if it acknowledges that the victims of religious persecution tend to be minorities in their home countries.

    As an analogy, if asylum seekers were fleeing the U.S. because of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan, it shouldn’t be surprising if preferences were given to a minority–people of African ancestry. After all, they’re the primary victims of the Klan, and the fact of their minority status lends credence to their claim of persecution.

    Who wants to argue that ISIS doesn’t target religious minorities?

    1. Who wants to argue that ISIS doesn’t target religious minorities?

      I’m sure you can find someone and probably even from academia.

  12. “and gives preference to Christian refugees.”

    Well… not exactly. The wording would also give preferential treatment to those of my religion stuck in Iran, for example. For Baha’is like myself and for Yazidis, not just Christians, this means preferential treatment in the refugee process, and admittedly might help my own religion, where many Baha’is are stuck in Iran where the Faith was founded and which is rather brutally oppressing the Baha’i population there.

    Another big question I’d want answered is something like “Can a Shia in a Sunni-majority region get preferential treatment this way too??” Are they considered the same or different religion in this respect?? Unfortunately the Shia in danger of ISIS live in shia-majority countries overall, so they’re not likely to receive preferential treatment, but I’d be interested to see if the presidential order treats them as the same or different in terms of religion.

    And, overall, the policy is still damn stupid. Anything that professes to stop terrorism while ignoring Saudi Arabia is ~stupid~.

    1. Can a Shia in a Sunni-majority region get preferential treatment this way too??

      1. Fail. I mean to say that I had that same thought.

    2. Are you a Zoroastrian?

      Sorry if I’m wrong, I just inferred it from your comment. I thought Zoroastrians did OK in Iran. Am I wrong?

      1. Nevermind you said B’hai. I need better reading comprehension

      2. Yeah, Zoroastrians do Okay. Iran sees the “people of the book” as officially Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, so all those religions are relatively free.

        Baha’is are a special case because as people who believe in Muhammad yet believe there are prophets /after/ Muhammad, Iran sees Baha’is as Muslims, but /heretical/ Muslims.

        Also because the Faith’s center is in Israel, Iran assumes Baha’is are Israeli spies. Despite the fact Baha’is were in that region before the modern Israeli state was even a /thing/.

        1. Apostates are always more hated than heathens.

        2. I assume they also roll Ahmadiyya into the heretical Muslims category as well.

          1. Yeah, probably, but there aren’t as many Ahmadiyya in Iran, so it’s not as visible of a persecution.

    3. Annnnd, looks like I’m wrong in this possibly benefiting my religion (despite it being stupid). Well it ~might~ have, but it looks like the US suspended the Iranian Lautenberg Program, by which Baha’is come to the US as refugees in the first place, so Iran’s religious minorities are stuck where they are despite the new favoritism that is shown their way in the refugee process.

  13. Trump wanted to ban all Muslims, but he forgot that 70% of them live in Indonesia. The man is obviously incompetent.

    1. I don’t doubt that this is the case. The man is not informed.

    2. Trump wanted to ban Muslims but he forgot about Canada. I find all of the back and forth kinda hilarious when, at the end of the day, Canada’s taking a good deal of the refugees the US won’t, and a decent amount of the Canadian border can easily be hiked or rowed across. So unless Trumpy is beefing up the Canucks’ screening processes, it’s all theater anyway.

      1. “it’s all theater anyway.”

        Yep, that’s pretty much how politics works.

  14. Self-protection of the individual consistently assesses the granular and macro environment.

    Critical awareness of physical surroundings and human connections parlayed through conceptual matrices and underlying emotion/mental states creates an objective self-protection picture for that particular moment.

    To deny that at given point on any security (whether self or state) spectrum there exists no general danger profile that can be derived from specific and consistent data points is to deny that logic is critical to reality.

    As it goes with personal security in a state designed on the concepts of freedom so it goes with state security in a country built on aspirations of freedom.

    Conceal carry might be critical at the sweet fucking family picnic at a park near bears, gangsters, or a psychopathic family member. That same mindset must be deployed if the local environment is home to those who submit to specific religions with proven dispositions to foster entire states that murder gays and behead goddamn witches.

    Reason has left the fucking mothership on this one.

    1. This is the one issue where you can see the Koch influence consistently come through in Reason.

      Prioritizing unchecked immigration over the liberty of citizens only makes sense when you see it from that perspective.

      Apparently Reason’s brainwashing/propaganda campaign on this issue has created quite a few true bleevers.

    2. Bravo, Agile. You need your own column.

  15. What I find equally troubling, and of course what no one is talking about, is the apparent move in the direction of safe zones. If that means increased US military engagement then we are setting ourselves up for yet another quagmire in the Middle East. Let’s also protest that.

    1. I agree. We have three choices, take whatever refugees want to come, don’t take any or many and do nothing, or don’t take any or many and also try to set up safe zones or do something to stem the flood of them. Taking refugees without limit is not politically feasible and creates all kinds of domestic problems and potential for backlash. Trying to stem the tied gets us involved and creates the justification for interventionism.

      Concern over stabilizing countries to stop the flow of refugees was the main justification for the war against Serbia, the ten year US enforcement of no fly zones over Iraq and US involvement in both Libya and Syria. Given that fact, it seems to me that if the US would just stop taking refugees, a big justification for US interventionism would vanish.

      The problem with saying the US has a duty to accept refugees is that it opens up the possibility that it has a duty to also do something to stop the creation of refugees. If we have a duty to take these people, it is not much of a leap to conclude we have some kind of duty to fix the conditions that is causing them to be refugees in the first place.

      1. ” we have some kind of duty to fix the conditions that is causing them to be refugees in the first place.”

        How is that a problem?

    2. “What I find equally troubling, and of course what no one is talking about, is the apparent move in the direction of safe zones. If that means increased US military engagement then we are setting ourselves up for yet another quagmire in the Middle East. Let’s also protest that.”

      This is almost certainly a result of discussions with Putin.

      I think we’re talking about safe zones being enforced and recognized by Iran, Assad, Russia–and with the full support of the UN.

      That would be fundamentally different from anything we’ve seen since the first Persian Gulf War–and probably wouldn’t include U.S. troops as such, but maybe Americans with blue helmets–if that.

      1. It would mean leaning of allies that see Iran as the biggest threat of the region.

  16. As Matt Welch noted on Saturday, Trump himself emphasizes that he is trying to help Christians. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who criticized Trump’s order yesterday, said it is “not explicitly a religious test” but “comes close to one,” which “is inconsistent with our American character.”

    From what I’ve read, this “trying to help Christians” thing is because the existing acceptance of refugees has under-accepted Christians and other religious minorities to the tune of 10 percentage points (going off the top of my head from what I read, Christians make up 10% in Syria, but only a fraction of 1% of the refugees accepted by the US are Christian). I wish I could find the article I was reading, because it posited that the reason that Christians weren’t being accepted is because they’re not in the refugee camps because they’re beaten, raped, and otherwise tormented at these camps.

    1. And Christians are being subject to much more persecution and genocide in these places than Muslims. I could never figure out why Obama put Christians to the bottom of the list. It wasn’t that it was equal. Obama seemed to make an effort to not accept Christians. That fact was pretty much ignored by the mainstream press and Obama was never asked to explain it. The only reason I can see is that Obama really is that big of an asshole and only wanted to help Muslims or maybe only wanted to admit Muslims because he viewed admitting them and sending them to small towns, something else he did, as the best way to fuck with his political opponents.

      1. Obama injected Muslims with zero ingredients list into this country because the motherfucker didn’t have to live near them like the vast majority of other politicians across the planet who’ve subjected their citizens to the same fucking fate.

        1. The cruel part about it was, he sent them to places like West Texas where there wasn’t any native community or infrastructure to help them out. It wasn’t the right thing to do for the refugees. It was like he wanted to create a mess just to have revenge on people who didn’t support him.

          1. That was just his attempt to set loose life long Democratic party voters into GOP majority areas.

            1. They’ve been doing it with Somalians for years.

              Oh, and they’re definitely not libertarians, either, no matter how much proggies like to claim it is so.

    2. Christians on the horror continuum are far less likely at this moment in time to behead infidels at the mall or explode into blood hurricane shit tons of people at a wedding over irrational obsessions with a shitty deity- take your pick who should get first dibs at freedom and security.

      1. You are on lucid fire, sir.

  17. I was staunchly bothered by Trump’s “total ban on Muslims” and if he had not gone down that road I might have voted for him instead of Johnson.

    I’m mildly bothered by the religious exemptions, but I strongly suspect that these will be fairly irrelevant in their macro-level effects (both safety- and freedom-wise).

    I’m definitely not bothered by a strict limit on importing immigrants from the specific places that are in this order; since I do accept immigration as part of Washington’s realm of authority, the options available to me are supporting tailored limits based on geopolitical conditions and supporting a single numerical limit on total refugees with no regards to origin, and the first sounds a lot more intelligent to me.

    1. I am not either. The thing about taking on refugees is that it can be expensive and cause a fair amount of social disruption, especially if they are from non western cultures and don’t have the language or employment skills to succeed at first. So if you are going to take refugees from these places, it is going to cost money and create some hardship on your native population. This is going to cause that population to tell you to stop taking them or support intervening to fix wherever they are coming from and stop the flow.

      Reason needs to take a long hard look at how their support for accepting unlimited numbers of refugees makes it harder to keep the US from intervening for humanitarian purposes.

  18. “Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani says the president’s order was a way of reframing the Muslim ban to make it less controversial. “When he first announced it,” Giuliani told Jeanine Pirro on Fox News, “he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’

    I’m not about to argue that taking pains to comply with the First Amendment is a bad thing.

    The question isn’t whether Trump initially intended to get around the First Amendment. The question is whether the executive order violates the First Amendment.

    1. The question is whether the executive order violates the First Amendment.

      It doesn’t. Specifying members of targeted religious communities for preferential refugee status isn’t an establishment of religion. In fact, we might have treaty obligations to do exactly that, in this case.

      Banning Muslims qua Muslims would have raised 1A issues, but Trump gave up on that during the campaign, for fuck’s sake.

      1. It also doesn’t restrict the free exercise of religion since the BOR doesn’t apply to non citizens who are not within the borders of the US.

      2. I said as much in response to your post up top.

        International and U.S. law recognizes religious persecution as legitimate grounds for an asylum claim, and minority status in a persecuted religion speaks to that.

        If we didn’t take minority status into consideration when considering an asylum claim by a member of a persecuted religious minority, that would probably violate international and U.S. law.

  19. I’m not a fan of the EO, but whatever Trump’s intent might be it isn’t a ban on Muslims for the sheer fact that there are far more Muslims in the rest of the world that aren’t subject to that order than are. Indonesia comes up as the obvious source, but if you take Asia and Africa into account as well, never mind the ME nations not mentioned, the vast majority of Muslims are unaffected. As usual, the media and hysterical progressives are #blm’ing the situation.

    1. Exactly. Most of the world’s Muslims live in Asia. The Muslims in the countries affected by the EO are about 10% of the global Muslim population.

      1. IOW, calling it “a ban on Middle Eastern refugees” is much more accurate. It doesn’t “ban Muslims” in any meaningful sense.

        1. The way this is being framed annoys the shit out of me because there’s a serious discussion to be had on the basis of the actual EO and its effects. Instead, the left, the progs, and anti-Trumpists are straw manning the bejeezus out of it, simultaneously undermining their own argument, such as it is, and preventing real issues from being addressed. Like they always do.

        2. It is banning muslims from countries Obama foreign policy fucked up the hardest though… Maybe these people know something?

  20. I’m not a fan of the EO, but whatever Trump’s intent might be it isn’t a ban on Muslims for the sheer fact that there are far more Muslims in the rest of the world that aren’t subject to that order than are. Indonesia comes up as the obvious source, but if you take Asia and Africa into account as well, never mind the ME nations not mentioned, the vast majority of Muslims are unaffected. As usual, the media and hysterical progressives are #blm’ing the situation.

  21. Forget treating people according to their nationalities.

    Forget treating people according to their religions.

    How about treating people as… individuals?

    The collectivist approach to this whole thing is the most abhorrent part of all.

    1. That’s really hard. This way’s easy.

      The only benefit to doing things the hard way is that it works.

    2. The executive order specifies that asylum claims will be considered on an individual basis.

  22. There’s not a lot of Christians left in some of these counties,and they ran out or killed almost all the Jews after 1948.That will cut down the flow of people. Religion of peace my ass.

  23. Wait, I thought we were trying to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past when we turned away German Jews (Christians and other minorities, in this analogy, though never as the analogy is employed by progs). Turning away Syrian Sunnis is more like turning away German Communists with soviet-leaning sympathies.

    1. So now your attacking the ‘hero’ who ‘ended the depression and fought WW2’ FDR? For shame.

  24. “Except that the seven countries on Trump’s list do not actually correspond to the nationalities of people who have carried out terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001.”

    Is there anything that might link these seven countries together, Sullum? Maybe something that happened in 2015 and 2016?

    1. I think it’s that they’re a source of refugees.

      On lefty websites, you’ll read constant comments about how Trump didn’t put Saudi Arabia on the list because he has investments there.

      I think it more likely that Saudi Arabia isn’t a source of asylum seekers.

      This executive order is about asylum seekers, and countries that aren’t producing many of those have no reason to be on the list.

      1. Iran is a source of refugees? News to me.

        1. That seems to be the oddball there, but apparently there are a substantial number of Iranian asylum seekers.

          http://cis.org/rush/australias…..settled-us

      2. No, it’s that four were restricted in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, and the other three were added to the list in 2016.

          1. Thanks.

            Makes sense to me.

    2. Yep…these are red herrings. You don’t go by what happened in the past, but rather the here and now.

      Those countries on the list are highly unstable, not well organized so you don’t really know who is who, not really diplomatic relations with a significant ISIS presence.

      Perhaps we should be using where the folks who have committed attacks in europe are from more as of a gauge.

  25. Okay, so can someone please shed some light for me on the prog mind here?

    People vowing to never patronize Uber again after they ignore order from taxi union

    I get that progs are for overpowered unions and I get why they’d support a union calling a strike to protest mean old Trump.

    Why in the hell would they hold Uber (ONLY valuable to the economy insofar as they are DIFFERENT than taxis) to those standards, and if they did then why the hell were they using Uber in the first place?

    1. Lyft lit their virtue signal yesterday while Uber just kept giving people rides. Therefore Uber must be evil for not stranding people at airports like Trump. No wait, he’s evil, but it’s different when you strand people to help a union.

    2. they have to destroy those who think different so we can be free. perfectly logical.

  26. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)… said it is “not explicitly a religious test” but “comes close to one,” which “is inconsistent with our American character.”

    America banned Muslims long before Donald Trump

    Trump’s proposals reflect a long-standing, if ugly, strain of U.S. immigration policy, one that restricted the entry of Arab and South Asian Muslim immigrants and barred them from becoming citizens until the middle of the 20th century….

    The Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person,” drastically restricted the ability of Muslims to become citizens… . Courts unwaveringly framed Islam as hostile to American ideals and society, casting Muslim immigrants as… a threat to the identity and national security of the United States… In a notable 1891 case, the Supreme Court highlighted “the intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects ..particularly to Christians.”….The United States’ functional ban on Muslim immigration persisted until 1944…. It was shifting U.S. geopolitical interests, not evolving perceptions of racial or religious inclusion, that drove dissolution of the restrictions.

    1. We also restrict entry of persons afflicted with other dangerously violent forms of insanity and deadly communicable diseases. Saracen berserkerism has fit the bill perfectly for both categories of danger these past few centuries. Only Thomas Jefferson had the guts to stand up to mystical maniacs in general.

  27. Except that the seven countries on Trump’s list do not actually correspond to the nationalities of people who have carried out terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001.

    true.
    would you be more or less likely to object to the policy were they added?

  28. Top 10 Largest Muslim Populations.

    1 Indonesia 209,120,000 Not affected
    2 India 176,200,000 Not affected
    3 Pakistan 167,410,000 Not affected
    4 Bangladesh 134,430,000 Not affected
    5 Nigeria 77,300,000 Not affected
    6 Egypt 76,990,000 Not affected
    7 Iran 73,570,000 120-day hold
    8 Turkey 71,330,000 Not affected
    9 Algeria 34,730,000 Not affected
    10 Morocco 31,930,000 Not affected

    About a billion Muslims from the world over, except for a small number of areas where ISIS is prominent, are still free to migrate to the US.

    If it is a Muslim ban, it’s a pretty piss-poor one.

    1. “If it is a Muslim ban, it’s a pretty piss-poor one.”

      As a ban on Muslim refugees, it’s much better.

  29. Any country is going to have a majority of the population be the members one one group.

    Any ban on that country will affect mostly this majority.

    Therefore, any ban on that country is racist (or whatever) against the majority of that country.

    Heads I win, tails you lose.

    1. Yep. Uncoercive rational people are cruelly bigoted against officious suicidal mystical berserkers. It ain’t fair!

  30. what people don’t understand is that this is the first step toward a muslim ban, therefore it is a muslim ban.

    i know this because a meme told me so.

  31. “except that the seven countries on Trump’s list do not actually correspond to the nationalities of people who have carried out terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001”

    And god knows that’s the only sane filter one could even suggest, right?

    (How many Saudis have killed an American in the US since 9/12/01?)

    I think it’s a dumb, heavy handed effort, and bad policy.

    But focusing on “countries with active terror insurgencies and the like, plus hostile Iran” is not obviously irrational as an immigration filter; I just don’t like the hard 120 day ban, as such.

    You need way better arguments than “but origins of domestic terrorists who succeeded since and including 9/11”, becaus 9/11 was – as I’d expect Reason to know damned well – an outlier.

    Any such efforts ought to look at current likely threat sources, not the last decade; things change, eh?

  32. Perhaps we wouldn’t give preferences to Christian refugees over Muslim refugees, if Muslim governments had a history of treating non-Muslims equally with Muslims.

  33. Perhaps we wouldn’t give preferences to Christian refugees over Muslim refugees, if Muslim governments had a history of treating non-Muslims equally with Muslims.

  34. Well, all those countries have to do is not be violent, dysfunctional shitholes that persecute Christians and other minority religions. Problem solved!

  35. Except that the seven countries on Trump’s list do not actually correspond to the nationalities of people who have carried out terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001.

    And, of course, nothing has changed in the Middle East since 2001.

    1. Nothing has changed in the Middle East in the past millennium. Better weapons maybe, but the smugly entrenched superstition of Faith that will brook no questioning is–judging by newsprint–the same as in Gutenberg’s day.

      1. You’re saying that the Middle East as a whole hasn’t changed: it’s still war torn and full of religious nuts. True.

        But who is fighting who does change over time.

  36. It’s a terrorist ban meant to protect Muslims (and all US citizens). We just had a terrorist attack on Muslims in Canada. I assume this is why Muslims came to the US, to flee terrorists attacks. So calm down and let the US protect you.

  37. A radical gets up on a podium and shouts out to the world that he wants a party of 1000 people dead. This radical attends an event where the party people gather and goes on a shooting spree, killing 30 people and injures another 50. The thing is, he didn’t go to another bigger event where more of those party people gather, and some of the people he shot didn’t actually belong to the party he claimed to want to kill. Be it that the shooter didn’t kill the entire party he said he was going to kill earlier, and furthermore, be it that he shot a few other people who were not in the party, isn’t it reasonable, not just feasible, to think that maybe the shooter was not targeting the party? Tell me reason.

  38. National Socialist attorneys were clever enforcers of racial eugenics laws, many of them written in These States and exported to Germany by Progressive ‘Murrican Socialists with big sticks. But the faithful knew their candidate and flocked to his banner in the voting booths. Both the Official American Christian State Religion instituted by George Waffen Bush with his first Executive Order and the NSDAP 25 Points agree on the fundamental ethical precepts of mysticism, altruism and the wonderfulness of agression.

  39. We are not at war with Christians. We ARE at war with MUSLIM terrorists.

  40. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  41. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her check was $21762 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can find out more

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  42. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.