Immigration

The Ongoing Gratuitous Cruelty of Trump's Travel Ban

The way the travel ban policy has been implemented both before and after the Supreme Court's decision further underscores the magnitude of the Justices' mistake.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Donald Trump's "travel ban" policy barring nearly all entry into the United States by citizens of several Muslim-majority nations has mostly been out of the headlines since the Supreme Court's dubious June 2018 decision upholding it. But it continues to inflict gratuitous suffering. As David Bier of the Cato Institute explains in a compelling Washington Post op ed, it has separated thousands of children from their families, including many who are American citizens:

While family separation at the border received significant media attention last year, a quieter family separation policy continued under the radar, and the separations have targeted American families. New research shows that President Trump's travel ban — first ordered two years ago last week — has already separated thousands of U.S. citizens from their spouses and minor children….

[T]he travel ban — which currently restricts entry of nationals of five majority-Muslim countries — is breaking apart nuclear families every day. New research from the Cato Institute suggests that as of this January, the policy has prevented more than 9,000 family members of U.S. citizens from entering the United States since the Supreme Court allowed the policy to take full effect in December 2017. That number includes more than 5,500 children and just short of 4,000 spouses.

If we continue this trend, the separations will hit an estimated 15,000 spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens by the end of 2019. The policy will also keep out an additional nearly 2,000 spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents by year's end…

This is despite the fact that no terrorists from the targeted countries have killed anyone in a terrorist attack in the United States in more than four decades, and no legal permanent resident from those countries has ever even tried to carry out a U.S. terrorist attack….

Case-by-case waivers for "close family members" of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents are available, but the president's travel ban proclamation specifically states that just being separated from your family is not sufficient for a waiver. Rather, family members must show that they — not their U.S. citizen family — would suffer "undue hardship" if denied.

The State Department defined this term to mean an "unusual situation" in which a delayed approval would "defeat the purpose of travel." In other words, keeping the nuclear family together is, for the Trump administration, not enough. They need to show that there'd be no point to coming at all if they didn't come immediately. That standard keeps these families apart.

Most of these families are waiting in silent desperation, afraid to speak up publicly against the policy lest they harm their chances at these illusive waivers.

As Bier points out, there is no plausible security rationale for these restrictions. Indeed, the same is true of the travel ban policy as a whole. The supposedly "extensive" study that purports to justify the order probably does not actually even exist. In the forty year period for which we have data, no one has ever been killed in a terrorist attack on US soil by an entrant from any of the nations covered by travel ban. Had the current version of the travel ban been in place since 9/11, it would not have prevented the entry of a single terrorist (even one who did not commit any attacks on US soil). The security risks posed by immigrants from nations covered by the travel ban are actually lower than those posed by native-born Americans. There is simply no reason to force thousands of families - including many with American-born children - to choose between separating children from their parents and living in countries where they face a future of poverty and oppression.

Even in situations where time really is of the essence and family-based waivers are thus theoretically available under the administration's policy, those waivers are often difficult or impossible to obtain. For example, it took a year-long legal battle and extensive negative publicity for the State Department to finally agree to grant a waiver to Yemeni citizen Shaima Saileh, a mother who sought simply to see her terminally ill 2 year-old American-citizen son, who was on life support in a hospital in Oakland.

The pointless cruelty of the administration's policy underscores the reality that the travel ban was never about genuine security risks, but rather an effort to make good on Donald Trump's notorious campaign promise to impose a "Muslim ban." Indeed, Trump himself repeatedly equated the two. In almost any other context besides immigration, the Supreme Court would have struck down a policy so transparently motivated by religious bigotry, and so lacking in any legitimate justification. For reasons I summarized here, and more fully in an amicus brief I coauthored on behalf of several fellow constitutional law scholars, it should not matter that the policy does not cover all of the Muslims in the world, and it is a mistake to suspend normal constitutional constraints on government power when it comes to immigration policy.

The way the travel ban policy has been implemented both before and after the Court's decision further underscores the magnitude of the Justices' mistake. I hope a future Supreme Court decision will eventually overrule or at least severely limit Trump v. Hawaii, so that similar abuses cannot be repeated in the future.

In the meantime, David Bier is right to suggest that Congress should take a hard look at what is going on, and pass legislation overriding at least the worst abuses of the travel ban policy. The Democrats, for their part, would do well to make rescission of the travel ban a precondition for any concessions to Trump on his border wall and other immigration-related matters. Whether or not Supreme Court was right to rule that the travel ban is legally permissible, Congress has good reason to terminate it on moral and policy grounds.

NEXT: Kamala Harris: Under Medicare for All, If You Like Your Insurance Plan, You Can't Keep It

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. In Trumplandia, cruelty is a feature, not a bug.

    1. In CommieLandia, WrongFeelz is the worst of all crimes.

  2. “…it has separated thousands of children from their families, including many who are American citizens”
    or this…
    Freed from being trafficked across borders by law breaking foreign nationals. Can be spun many ways.

    1. You know this is an article about the Muslim… oops I mean “Travel” ban, right?

    2. The pants shitting hysteria over “separated families” is the most moronic bit of hypocritical faux outrage currently in fashion.

      Thousands of US families are separated daily by the criminal justice system.

      We don’t put children in detention facilities with grownups. Duh.

  3. Trump bad, open borders good!

    1. Open borders for Americans and their families good, yes.

      1. MAGA!

        1. AWAG.

        2. We’ll just keep Making America Great Again.

          1. In a quick-draw contest of wits, slogans are for slow guns.

            1. Nah. Let him keep saying that he doesn’t think America is all that great.

            2. Its not a slogan, its the truth.

              1. See? He’s doubling down on his premise that America isn’t great.

  4. I thought children of US citizens were granted citizenship. Or are these children of spouses, or children from prior to citizenship?

    1. In the case I.S. mentioned the child is the citizen, the parent is excluded.

  5. Poor Lefties just cannot convince most Americans to let Socialists destroy the USA.

    1. This would be a point for you… if people from socialist countries were banned. But they’re not.

      1. Good point, we need to prevent immigration from Venezuela before they try to trash this place like they did their home country.

        1. Lotta socialism in Europe, too. Better safe than sorry, right?

          1. That’s a routine, and particularly silly, mistake that liberals make, labeling Europe socialist.

            Scandinavia and such are capitalist countries with large social welfare programs and safety nets…socialism is government control of industries and the economy in general. Finland’s government doesn’t run Nokia, for example.

            1. Labeling Europe socialist is a conservative talking point. Not a liberal one. Most liberals understand there needs to be a balance which is what many European countries strive to do. And what we need to do.

              1. Conservative talking point? Not so much. Only when talking about “socialized medicine” rather than entire economies.

                A conservative points to a once wealthy and prosperous place like Cuba and Venezuela and says “see, socialism sucks” and the liberals point to Finland and say “but *these* are socialist countries” to which the Fins and Scandinavians respond “we are not socialist.”

                Then everybody argues semantics. To you point, there is a range of economic and governmental activities that both socialist and capitalist countries engage in (both have armies, for example) but at the end of the day, socialism is government control of the economy and *that* always fails, like night follows days.

                1. It’s almost as if different people have different meanings for various words.

                  1. I don’t know if you’re trolling with that or not, but loveconstitution1789’s comment below with the dictionary definition of socialism is the best place to start, and via that, the Nordic model is definitely not socialist and never has been.

                    1. That definition will not do. What qualifies as a means of production, distribution, and exchange? How much of it should be owned by the community? Does government ownership of Amtrak and USPS render the U.S. socialist?

                    2. Socialist and capitalistic nations do have certain policies that they both practice, for example, I note in my comment above that both have armies. But the USPS is a service, as arguably is Amtrack, not control of the “means of production.”

                      That public transportation and non-private armies exist in both forms of government does not negate the difference between the two types of government. Saying it did, would be like saying that because some non-luxury cars have luxury car features, that they are all luxury cars.

                    3. mad_kalak: On the other hand, Americans who openly call themselves socialists, when confronted with the many failures of socialism, often point to Sweden as an example of socialist success.

                    4. so?cial?ism
                      /?s?SH??liz?m/
                      noun: socialism
                      a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

                      (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

                      Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all have state owned businesses and partly owned state businesses. That makes them Socialist.

                    5. They also have alot of private companies as well. What you call “state owned companies” are different than public companies in the US like power companies owned by the cities where they operate.

                2. “Conservative talking point? Not so much.”

                  Right. Never happens.

                  In any case, approximately 0 people made the claim that Europe is, was, or might be entirely socialist.

                  “Then everybody argues semantics”

                  Sure they do. Right up until someone declares themselves the winner, and pretends that their definitions are the only correct ones.

                  ” at the end of the day, socialism is government control of the economy ”

                  Right on schedule.

              2. Having a large safety net just means lots of taxes. While this can hurt businesses, European countries tend have low to no business taxes for just this reason.

                1. Europe has VAT taxes and many other oppressive tax schemes.

                  Its the only way that they can afford their welfare states.

              3. If it weren’t for that Nasty Constitution, you might have gotten the chance to act on your emotions.

        2. Venezuela didn’t fail because they embraced socialism (however you define it). They failed because they destroyed the institutions and companies that managed Venezuela. Really no different then what Trump is doing now. Just Trump is more incompetent in trying to achieve it.

          1. You say dumb shit.

            1. I think he’s got your number, actually.

          2. They failed because they nationalized all business, centralized and restricted decisions for all policy making to a small group in an al powerful central government. They also stripped away most basic civil rights to make imposition of those policies easy. The only thing the President has done is strip way the power of unelected bureaucrats to impose “regulations” which carry the weight of laws. Many of those regulations provided no benefit to this country as a whole and the only true benefits were political.

            1. “They failed because they nationalized all business”

              Oh, please.

              The failed because the national economy depended almost entirely on oil revenue, and the price of oil fell substantially. What happens to any organization when it’s income drops low enough, long enough?

          3. If only they had done socialism right, everything would have been great!

        3. Venezuela didn’t fail because they embraced socialism (however you define it). They failed because they destroyed the institutions and companies that managed Venezuela. Really no different then what Trump is doing now. Just Trump is more incompetent in trying to achieve it.

          1. so?cial?ism
            /?s?SH??liz?m/
            noun: socialism
            a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

            (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

        4. You already have California.

          THEY’RE ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM!

        5. Venezuela is a shining example of a people convinced that socialism was the answer to the greed of the wealthy who sadly discovered when the government controls everything, those without power end up with nothing. The first act by Chavez on his move towards dictatorship was to ban the private owneship of guns (sound familiar)? Once the people were disarmed, he was free to impose whatever policies he deemed appropriate and seize property as he wished. Chavez and Maduro transformed Venzuela from one of the wealthiest in South America to the poorest in only 17 years in spite of their vast oil reserves. Inflation is 1800% and people fight for basic necessities like food, water and even toilet paper. Venezuela is a country showing the actual “success” of true socialism just like California has been in the US.

          1. “The first act by Chavez on his move towards dictatorship was to ban the private owneship of guns (sound familiar)?”

            No. Historically, dictators achieved their ends by simply killing anyone who might stand up to them. Dead guys with guns are even less of a threat than live guys without them.

  6. Does Trump’s travel ban prevent US citizens travelling from the US to see those family members that they wish to see ? Where did he get the power to do that ? Family separation ? Little round objects.

    Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, tens of thousands of Americans working outside the US, make frequent trips back to the US to see their stay at home families.

    1. “Does Trump’s travel ban prevent US citizens travelling from the US to see those family members that they wish to see ? ”

      So your suggestion is to just tell the 2 year old on life support to yank out the tubes and wires, pull out his credit card and buy a ticket on Expedia, hop on a plane and fly over to Yemen.

      That’s great.

      1. Bit of advice: if you ever find yourself having to point to the most distant outlier in order to make your case, you are almost certainly wrong.

        1. Bit of advice.

          If your “side” CREATED the outlier, you haven’t much leg to stand on.

          1. Poor Pollock troll.

            1. Poorer 1789 troll

      2. So your suggestion is to just tell the 2 year old on life support to yank out the tubes and wires, pull out his credit card and buy a ticket on Expedia, hop on a plane and fly over to Yemen.

        The family was living in Egypt. The mother became separated by the decision of the parents that the son should get medical treatment in the US. This decision was a perfectly reasonable one in the circumstances – US treatment ahead of famiy togertheness. Particularly as family untogetherness was subject to appeal on compassionate grounds. Which was, at the traditional US government pace, granted. Nothing to see here, move along.

        Your credit card point demonstrates your unseriousness, btw.

        1. Wait, are you saying that the US medical system is better than all the socialist, single payer ones in countries that don’t have a travel ban in place? The parents thought the kid would be better off in the US than in Britain, Canada, Sweden, etc?

          Funny how everyone wants to come to the racist outhouse that is the United States. I wonder why that is.

          Also, wondering how the kid became a US citizen when his parents aren’t. Anchor baby? Couldn’t be. The media says those don’t exist.

          1. As suspected, clicking on the link reveals that his father is an American citizen while his mother is not.

          2. “The parents thought the kid would be better off in the US than in Britain, Canada, Sweden, etc?”

            How amazing that an American might prefer American medical facilities over foreign ones. Shocking, really.

  7. So Trumps travel ban is as effective at stopping terrorism as gun control laws are at stopping crime.

    Just pointless rules that “do something”, appeal to the constituents and shit on people’s rights.

    1. Gun rights are protected by the US Constitution.

      National defense, regulation of migrants, and rule making for naturalization are enumerated powers of the federal government.

      1. As always, you are completely wrong. The U.S. Constitution places absolutely no limits on immigration.

        1. He didn’t say that it did. He merely stated the enumeration of powers therein, of the federal govt regarding immigration and naturalization.

          1. No. He said “regulation of migrants”. The constitution only describes the requirements for migrants to become citizens. It says nothing whatsoever about “regulating” immigration.

            1. Congress has the power to regulate and prohibit migration.

              http://www.cato-unbound.org/20…..ation-good

            2. Article I, Section 9.
              The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

              As of 1808, Congress is free to regulate immigration.

              1. “As of 1808, Congress is free to regulate immigration.”

                of slaves, according to your citation.

                1. Is the hysteria over illegal immigrants a cultural hangover from the days of being terrified of slave revolts?

        2. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
          The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

          It’s well after 1808. Feds have explicit authority to limit migration.

      2. Freedom of Religion is also protected by the US Constitution.

        The Muslim ban, no matter the transparent re-branding, should have been laughed out of court.

        1. It was, that’s why the travel ban stood, because there is no ridiculous Muslim ban, moron.

          1. Then why does the President keep saying otherwise, Vinni?

            1. I’m guessing it’s because he doesn’t.

              1. Send a postcard from wherever you are. Here in the U.S., ours does.

                1. Here in the U.S., ours does

                  Your citation fell off.

                  1. “Your citation fell off.”

                    Water is wet. Citation fell off that one, too. Also, fire burns. Hmmm… no citation there, either. Almost like commonly-known facts don’t need citations.

          2. Oh you better get on the same page with “retiredfire” who is pushing the “Islam isn’t a religion!” shtick.

            But yeah, lets just pretend Trump didn’t spend months promising a Muslim ban only changing it to a Travel ban after everyone told him it was too transparently unconstitutional.

        2. Except that Islam is not a religion, but an ideology loosely wrapped as a way to “worship” their god.
          And an ideology that is inimical to our Constitutional system – e.g. it does not believe in a republican form of government.
          The Koran and the Hadith are Muslim’s “constitution” and you can’t have two, competing ones, in an ordered society.

          1. And feckin Catholics – did you hear they answer to a guy called A POPE as a kind of supreme authority and refer to some ancient collection of badly-translated scraps of goat hide they call a BIBLE for their laws? Impossible to co-exist with the likes of that!

            1. And feckin Catholics – did you hear they answer to a guy called A POPE as a kind of supreme authority

              Except they don’t. They defer to the Pope as a supreme RELIGIOUS authority.

              The idea that Catholics are secretly ruled by the pope is an OLD leftist idea, probably older than when you all founded the klan.

              1. As the far left used to say – Home Rule Not Rome Rule.

        3. There is no Muslim religion ban.

          There is an immigration ban of people from nations that happen to be Muslim nations.

          1. Nations selected by the Obama administration as being security risks.

        4. Freedom of religion does not implicate immigration policy. It protects the rights of people to practice here. It doesn’t protect anyone’s right to come here.

    2. “So Trumps travel ban is as effective at stopping terrorism as gun control laws are at stopping crime.”

      You’re doing the math wrong. Trump’s travel ban stops 100% of the 0 terrorists it’s targeted at.

      1. Exactly. Mexican terrorists = 0

      2. Poor trolls Pollock and Mcgoop.

        1. No longer even pretending to offer reasoned debate. Sad.

          1. When did he ever pretend that?

  8. Thing is, there are two groups. One group already knows that Trump’s travel ban is stupid, cruel, and pointless, and the other group doesn’t care.

    1. To be fair to the pollock troll, the he mentions and supports also think sending people to gulags is a good idea.

      1. To be fair to the 1789 troll, I believe it has a functioning brain STEM, at least.

      2. Poor pollock troll.

        Very limited in scripts.

        1. I revise my assessment to “partially-functional” brain stem. It’s clearly not fully functional, as the obvious anoxia to the rest of the brain demonstrates.

          1. It’s clear that best part of LC ran down his mom’s ass crack and stained the sheet. Too bad….for all of us that have to endure to his mindless, pedantic drivel.

        2. I guess pollock troll has to use Mcgoop script to complete sentences.

          1. Come back when you achieve sentience.

  9. Somin is right, we need to extend the ban to Muslim countries where terrorists routinely come from as well, like Saudi Arabia….er…at least I think that was supposed to by my conclusion.

    1. Yeah, that was my reaction: He’s right, the travel ban IS terribly under-inclusive, we should do something about that.

      1. Shut down the government again, and this time tell the air-traffic controllers to stay home. That’ll teach those dirty terrorists not to mess with us.

        1. I’d rather just privatize such things, so that government shutdowns don’t disrupt anything important. There’s no reason the air traffic control system has to be run by the government, it’s not like the airlines want their planes to crash into each other. It could be privately funded.

          Just like some airports get away without TSA problems by hiring private security instead.

          1. No, air traffic control is a regulation on private business in the interest of public safety, an inherently governmental function. Safety has to be the top priority, not airline profits.

    2. Somin has ignorant y failed to realize the countries on the list were selected due to lack of information sharing with the us. This created a lack of information for screening terrorists. Somin knows this was the differing factor but becomes completely retarded with anything open borders.

      1. A more accurate statement would be they wanted a Muslim ban, their lawyers told them that wouldn’t fly, so they targeted the subset of Muslim countries that didn’t have an approved information sharing program. It’s called a pretext.

        1. No, that would be a complete lie designed to smear Trump as “racist”, even though religion isn’t a race.

          There are lots and lots of muslim countries. Most don’t export terrorists. There was no desire to ban every muslim from the US. Just ones that wish us dead. Like you know, Iran?

          1. “There are lots and lots of muslim countries. Most don’t export terrorists.”

            Which is why it’s so odd that the ones who DO export terrorists, to the U.S., aren’t on the list.

          2. Trump wanting to ban all Muslims from the US?

            Hmm, I wonder where people could have gotten that idea??

            1. You appear to ignore that he says that we need the ban until our legislature can figure out what the hell is going on over there and talks about widespread hatred for the US among wide swaths of the Muslim population in foreign countries. That clip seems fairly well focused on the overblown security threat rather than anti-Muslim animus.

              1. Ok, no one seriously believed he only intended to ban Muslims for a few months until he understood the situation better.

                And it was just the clip I found since a lot of news clips vanished from youtube, the Muslim ban and the wall were basically his only two policy proposals.

                1. So know it’s not what he said, but what people believed? That doesn’t seem right.

                  1. It’s about applying some basic context to his statement. The reason he wants to ban Muslims is there have been a few terrorist attacks by Muslims. The thing to “figure out” is why Muslims are committing terrorist attacks, and the implication is stop it.

                    But there’s not really anything that Trump can do that will make his supporters stop feeling afraid of Muslims, nor has he ever expressed the slightest desire to do so.

                    In fact, here’s a thought. Since the travel ban what actions has Trump actually taken in order to help “our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”?

          3. There was no desire to ban every muslim from the US.

            Seriously, why do people lie like this? He expressly said that he wanted to. His statement was so unqualified that it was unclear whether he was even including Muslim citizens.

            The third try at an executive order was far more limited, but that’s not what Trump said nor what he originally did.

        2. When you say “they” you are refering to Obama, right?

        3. A pretext?
          You mean like calling an amnesty “prosecutorial discretion” and then adding things on that were never something prosecutors had discretion over, in the first place, like awarding work permits?

      2. Are you sure that they weren’t selected based on where Trump doesn’t have personal business interests?

        Might want to check that little bit of info out. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, seeing as how honest and ethical this President is.

        1. well, the President absolutely, positively, no-he-really-mean-it doesn’t have any business interests in Russia, and they didn’t get banned.

          Then again, unlike the rinky-dink countries that did get banned, Russia has both nukes and the ability to deliver them to Mar-a-lago.

      3. What Somin has ignorantly failed to realize is that that SC, and certainly not in a “dubious” fashion, ruled that Trump was using a law, legitimately passed by Congress, conforming to the letter of that law, according to the letter of his order.
        The claim that it is some kind of religiously-based exclusion is only in the minds of Trump’s detractors.
        What he had stated as campaign rhetoric, being unrelated to virtually anything, as with all other political promises made.
        Courts should not attempt to read minds, but rely ONLY on what is put on the paper, placed before them.

        1. You lot are so egregious you even use the fact that Trump is a liar as a defence. However the wall suggests a certain literal-mindedness on his part.

        2. ” that SC, and certainly not in a “dubious” fashion, ruled that Trump was using a law, legitimately passed by Congress, conforming to the letter of that law, according to the letter of his order.”

          On the third try.

      4. “Somin knows this was the differing factor but becomes completely retarded with anything open borders.”

        Not retarded. Dishonest.

  10. So, he’s keeping US citizens locked up within the borders of the US, so that they can’t visit non-citizen relatives outside the US? Monstrous! [/sarc]

    In general, the only way you get this situation is if the citizen in question immigrated here without the non-citizen relative in the first place, and later became a citizen. Rather like my wife, who immigrated here from the Philippines back in 2006, and was finally naturalized a few years ago. Getting a tourist visa for her mother to visit is NOT going to be easy!

    But that’s not due to the Philippines being part of the travel ban. Rather, it’s because the Philippines has a high rate of visa overstays. And isn’t that what you’re telling us is the main route for illegal immigration?

    And it’s a consequence of her choosing in the first place to leave her family. And she’s visited them since; Getting them here is hard, but her going there is trivial except for the airfare.

    So, really, in almost all these cases, the complaint is not that they’re kept apart, but just that they have to meet abroad, not here. All that changes is the direction of travel.

    As for the rare exception to that rule, (Such as the one case you cited.) yeah, government sucks at doing almost anything. What’s new about that?

  11. This is clearly just more anti-Trump crap, but if you attempt to pick it apart on its merits, you uncover a lot of built-in bias.

    For example, the rhetoric that goes “the travel ban has separated thousands of children – including many American citizens – from their families.” It has done no such thing! Those families separated themselves. The travel ban has prevented them from reuniting here, but certainly not from reuniting there.

    Further, just because no one form any of these countries has killed anyone in the U.S yet doesn’t mean that it will never happen had we done nothing. Has anyone ever installed a burglar alarm in their home, never having been burglarized before? Is there really ZERO RISK as the commentators imply, or is there a finite, non-zero, palpable risk that something bad could come of letting folks form these places come here? Somalia (no government, lawless shit hole run by thugs and pirates)? North Korea (we will nuke you!)? Iran (death to America!)? Yemen, Syria (no US-Syria govt. relations since 2012), Libya (US Dept of State: “Do not travel to Libya due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, and armed conflict.”).

    Are the correspondents saying we should allow travel to the US from anywhere? I guess so.

    1. “Are the correspondents saying we should allow travel to the US from anywhere? I guess so.”

      Maybe they’re saying we should have a “no terrorists” ban, instead of a “no-Yemeni” ban.

      1. Pretty sure we have a “no terrorists” ban and have had for some time.

        1. Then what’s the problem Trump “fixed”?

          1. Trump enforced the “no terrorists” ban.

            1. Good one!

      2. Maybe they’re saying we should have a “no terrorists” ban, instead of a “no-Yemeni” ban.

        This sounds similar to my “no losers to go into my stock portfolio” ban. It’s quite hard to implement.

        1. Yeah. Most things worth doing are hard to do well.

      3. Yemeni has a non existent, vetting process for granting visas, Yemeni has no information as to the background of the people making the request, so to address that, the United States has ordered them to do a better job. Until they do a better job, the United States will not allow travel from Yemeni.

        Gee, when you say it outloud like that, it’s the most reasonable thing the United States has ever done.

        1. You can’t even get the name of the country right, and you think we should take your advice?

    2. Once CATO is invoked, the only desire transmitted is open borders – no controls on anyone who wants to come here, even if their intent is harmful.
      I wonder if anyone has asked Cato how they would feel if millions of Americans went down to Mexico, violated their immigration laws and made efforts to alter their government.
      Betcha they wouldn’t like the idea.

        1. Cuz it’s only bad when Whitey does it.

      1. “I wonder if anyone has asked Cato how they would feel if millions of Americans went down to Mexico, violated their immigration laws and made efforts to alter their government.”

        It’s now called “Texas”. This is also how we got part of Colombia.

  12. The border should be shut down for a while, and immigration levels should be reduced by 50-100%.

    1. … and deport all the lawyers to the Marianas Trench.

      1. That would be a good start, but the sharks would avoid eating them out of professional courtesy.

        1. Now, now. You can’t judge an entire profession because of a few hundred thousand bad apples.

          1. Good one!

            That said, we just have bad incentives what I would *like* to believe.

    2. The border should be shut down for a while, and immigration levels should be reduced by 50-100%.

      Stephen Miller reportedly believes that, too.

      No wonder America has been rejecting the opinions of guys like you and Stephen Miller throughout my lifetime.

      1. Excuse me, Harvard/Harris polling consistently indicates that over 80 percent of American voters support reducing immigration levels, and more than 60% want it cut by at least half. Moreover, black Americans are more likely than any other demographic group to support lower annual immigration levels.

        1. That didn’t sound right, so I checked Gallup and Pew. One minute of research suggests your figures are not entirely reliable, although it appears half-educated and intolerant Americans dislike immigrants, probably because they are unwilling to accept responsibility for their self-inflicted problems and have chosen to blame immigrants for their desolate lives instead.

          1. Ad hominem – half-educated and intolerant Americans – on top of mind reading – unwilling to accept responsibility for their self-inflicted problems and have chosen to blame immigrants for their desolate lives.
            You are truly a despicable character, Artie.

            1. You would prefer “authoritarian and bigoted right-wingers” to “poorly educated?”

              Have it your way.

          2. One minute of research suggests your figures are not entirely reliable, although it appears that it’s closer to 70% of Americans who want immigration levels maintained at current ones or reduced. Less than 30% want to see any increase at all.

            FTFY, Artie.

            Looks like the clear majority of Americans don’t agree with you. Based on YOUR cite.

            1. Most Americans consider the views of Stephen Miller — who wishes to strangle immigration and demonize all immigrants and deport as many as he can — to be bigoted and backward. He is a substantial part of the reason that Pres. Trump is currently polling at 30 percent, with support concentrated among poorly educated, economically inadequate, religious people and communities. Most Americans — the educated, the accomplished, the modern, mostly — either do not mind the current immigration situation or wish to increase immigration.

              1. President Trump is polling at the exact same level as when he won the election, low 40s.

                Most Americans support reduced immigration levels and stricter enforcement of immigration laws. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans support this even more than white Americans.

          3. No, the figures are very reliable. Gallup and Pew support the same general conclusion over the years, although these questions were not as detailed and in depth on this specific issue as Harvard/Harris.

            “it appears half-educated and intolerant Americans dislike immigrants, probably because they are unwilling to accept responsibility for their self-inflicted problems and have chosen to blame immigrants for their desolate lives instead.”

            Sure, maybe some. There are also a lot of intolerant and ignorant Americans who support mass immigration.

            More importantly, there are educated and informed Americans who are able to formulate a reasonable answer to the question: What immigration policy and level of immigration would provide the most benefit to the most Americans, i.e. middle and working class Americans? The answer is lower immigration levels and a merit-based system. Sorry you’re too ignorant to see this.

  13. So, the argument goes since “no terrorists from the targeted countries have killed anyone in a terrorist attack in the United States in more than four decades, and no legal permanent resident from those countries has ever even tried to carry out a U.S. terrorist attack….” it makes no sense to have a travel ban from these countries.

    What if a legal permanent resident from one of these countries had carried out a terrorist attack on US soil. Would that change the argument? What if, a Somali permanent resident in 2016 decided to engage in a terrorist attack with a knife and car, injuring 13 people at Ohio State? Would that change the argument? Begin to potentially justify the ban? Admittedly no one died, but is it necessary for someone to die (rather than just a terrorist serious attack that injures over a dozen) for it to be taken seriously?

    1. No, it wouldn’t change the argument. People should be treated as individuals, not based on their membership in an ethnic or national group.

      1. I get the anti-racism argument about not judging ethnic groups, but why should we not judge by national origin?

        Sure, there is overlap, but a nation should be able to say that people of another nation hostile to it cannot immigrate (for example).

        1. “I get the anti-racism argument about not judging ethnic groups, but why should we not judge by national origin?”

          Because it’s dumb.

          “a nation should be able to say that people of another nation hostile to it cannot immigrate”

          Sure, unless they mind being dumb.

          During WWII, Germany was a nation hostile to the U.S. So we took in people who didn’t want to be Germans any more (Including several who were important to the U.S. developing the atomic bomb.)

          1. But these Muslims aren’t saying they don’t want to be Muslims, any more.
            In fact, they entrench themselves in areas, and try to subvert the Constitutional system, that all Americans should be working to protect – except CATO and other anarcho-libertarians.

            1. “But these Muslims aren’t saying they don’t want to be Muslims, any more.”

              What does that have to do with judging them by their national origin?

            2. “But these Muslims aren’t saying they don’t want to be Muslims, any more.”

              Didn’t you get the memo? It’s totally not a ban on MUSLIMS, just on those countries we could get away with banning.

          2. Poor pollock the troll doesnt understand the difference between political refugees and terrorist in waiting to use American freedoms against Americans.

            1. See if you can get as many as TWO of your brain cells active at the same time for a change.

            2. JP deserves more respect because he’s actually quite dangerous, or at least people like him in large groups. He’s smart enough to articulate his beliefs, but unable to see the flaws in his logic or at the minimum any downsides or trade-offs to opposing viewpoints.

              First , we let *some* Germans in to the U.S…..but that was prior to WWII; a distinction he was unable to make.

              Second, one example that is a positive standout, such as Einstein, does not mean that therefore all Germans should be let in when we were at war with their nation.

              Third, by his logic, that we should judge all potential immigrants as individuals rather than using the heuristic of nation of origin leads to an impossible level of resources needed to vet all individuals. It simply cannot be done, that is, judging all potential immigrants as individuals because our limited resources are often put to higher uses. This assumes, of course, that we *would* check status to make sure we weren’t allowing in rapists or drug dealers and it is admittedly an assumption that he may not share.

              Fourth, it blithely assumes that all nations are equal. They most certainly are not, otherwise traffic would flow both ways. More people want to come to the U.S. then leave it, proving that nations are not equal. Our country is better, at least to the extent that it provides more opportunity for flourishing.

              While JP may be an intellectual spasmatic, remember that he’s a dangerous one.

              1. “First , we let *some* Germans in to the U.S…..but that was prior to WWII; a distinction he was unable to make.

                Second, one example that is a positive standout, such as Einstein, does not mean that therefore all Germans should be let in when we were at war with their nation.”

                Miss the point much?

                The question was whether or not to have a total and complete ban. I’m arguing no, because just because a nation has become hostile, does not mean that every damn citizen has. I point to people fleeing as an example.

                From this, you decided that I said “hey, let everyone in!”. But I did not. YOU may want to argue against that argument, and I welcome you to do so. But leave me out of it, K?

                1. I’m actually glad that Reason doesn’t allow comment editing, so anyone can go back and see your comment says exactly: “During WWII, Germany was a nation hostile to the U.S. So we took in people who didn’t want to be Germans any more…”

                  Yes, JP advocated taking in people, during wartime, of a hostile foreign nation because it is “dumb” to judge people by national origin. Further, like I said, we took them in BEFORE the war, a key distinction you still are missing.

                  Your inability to be fully cognizant of the implications of what you’re saying and see the holes in your logic are staggering to say the least, and the hubris by which you place on the reader fault for pointing them out beggars the patience of a normal man. Maybe it would be better to just be like lovecon1789 and just badger you as a NPC troll and be done with it.

                  Me, though, I try to remember that a human being is at the other end of every comment I respond to, no matter how willfully misguided. You would be wise to do the same.

                  .

                  1. “Yes, JP advocated taking in people, during wartime, of a hostile foreign nation because it is “dumb” to judge people by national origin.”

                    This word, “advocating”… I don’t think it means what you think it means.

                    “Further, like I said, we took them in BEFORE the war, a key distinction you still are missing.”

                    Also, during the war, and also, after the war. What’s this key distinction you’re referring to?

                    “Your inability to be fully cognizant of the implications of what you’re saying and see the holes in your logic”

                    Cart before horse. First FIND a hole in my logic, THEN complain about it.

                    “Maybe it would be better to just be like lovecon1789”

                    If that’s all you’re capable of, bring it on.

      2. 1. “Use argument as part of logic to reject ban”.
        2. “Argument has factual problem”
        3. “This changes nothing!”

        Surprise….

        Gosh, if only we had perfect information about every individual who wanted to immigrant. If only we had information sharing treaties with other countries. And those countries who didn’t share information with us, their residents might pose a greater threat…

      3. It’s a “national government wont share discriminating information” issue. Why is this hard to understand? It’s literally in the records for the argument to the USSC. Is the “its racist” meme simy easier for idiots? Iraq was taken off the list after a) becoming less Muslim, or b) for increasing intelligence sharing for use in Visa processing? C’mon now, dont be a fucking idiot.

        1. Iraq was taken off the list because we (mostly military) wanted to import Iraqis who helped us during the occupation.

          Much the same way we took in Vietnamese after that war… we picked the wrong side, and the Vietnamese who picked us during the war were in for some rough times after we decided we didn’t much care about who was in charge of the Vietnamese government any more..

          1. So NOT a Msulim ban.

            Its a ban from certain nations that happen to be Muslim nations.

            The SCOTUS already Trump’s policy perfectly constitutional.

      4. I get the anti-racism argument about not judging ethnic groups, and I can see why we should not judge by national origin

        ….but when does it become incumbent upon us to not judge people by their stated beliefs and actions?

        We arte supposed to ignore “Hi, I think Jews should be killed because of their faith, that homosexuals should be killed because of their orientation, that women should be treated as chattel and beaten if they object, that all law should work in accordance with the dictates of my faith–and that it is a mark of distinction in my faith to kill in the name of these beliefs.”

        We can’t take that into consideration?

        Do you think anyone would blink an eye if we had a shit-ton of Nazis migrating here, bent on killing jews and restoring the reich and we banned entry from those countries who had no way or no interest in helping us screen for these people?

        1. “We arte supposed to ignore ‘Hi, I think Jews should be killed because of their faith, that homosexuals should be killed because of their orientation, that women should be treated as chattel and beaten if they object, that all law should work in accordance with the dictates of my faith–and that it is a mark of distinction in my faith to kill in the name of these beliefs.'”

          No. You are supposed to not impute this statement to people who haven’t made it, even if they live in a country where lots of people have.

    2. “What if a legal permanent resident from one of these countries had carried out a terrorist attack on US soil. Would that change the argument?”

      It does change the argument. The closer you get to a 1:1 matchup of “immigrants/vistors from X” and “terrorists from X”, the more it makes sense to consider all immigrants/vistors from X to be terrorists. But as long as the correlation remains 0:1, it makes no sense at all.

      1. Oh James….

        I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. Go look up the 2016 Ohio State terrorist attack, and where the terrorist was from. Then get back to me with the 0:1 correlation.

        But perhaps you need a 1:1 correlation. Which is kinda crazy, and I wonder if you extend that to the rest of your logic about preventative measures.

        1. “Go look up”

          No, thank you. I also don’t think we should ban Americans from entering the U.S., who after all carried out the Oklahoma City bombing. In fact, Americans have conducted more bombings in the U.S. than any other nationality.

          “But perhaps you need a 1:1 correlation.”

          Read my earlier comment again. (Hint: It contains not one word about what I need).

          1. ” I also don’t think we should ban Americans from entering the U.S., who after all carried out the Oklahoma City bombing.”

            There you have just identified the insanity at the basis of your argument: The idea that non-Americans have the same right to be in America as Americans. That they have any right to be in America AT ALL.

            1. The idea that non-Americans have the same right to be in America as Americans.

              Okay, Brett. So don’t start bitching here when the state further erodes your freedom of association rights by forcing you to bake cakes for gays. Because you yourself don’t even support your own freedom of association rights in a consistent manner. You aren’t willing to stand up for my rights, you are even willing to give up your right to associate with foreigners on your own private property, so why should anyone else stick up for any of your other rights?

              1. Having somebody immigrate here isn’t a freedom of association issue in the first place.

                1. “Having somebody immigrate here isn’t a freedom of association issue in the first place.”

                  It is if an American wanted to associate with them. Say, in marriage.

                  1. Then imprisoning murderers violates my freedom of association, because I might want to associate with them?

                    1. Then imprisoning murderers violates my freedom of association, because I might want to associate with them?

                      It actually does. But we put up with it because the alternative would be worse. Furthermore please note that this restriction of your (and everyone’s) liberty is very narrow, limited only to not being able to associate with individuals convicted of only certain types of crimes in a laborious courtroom procedure, with safeguards for everyone’s due process and liberty. And even then still honest mistakes happen.

                      We would not tolerate, however, an infringement of liberty in which everyone who looked like they might be a murderer were thrown in jail and thereby depriving you of your right to associate with any of them.

                      But that is what you advocate for immigrants. If you think they “might” do something bad, then everyone’s liberty is thrown away.

                2. Having somebody immigrate here isn’t a freedom of association issue in the first place.

                  Said the guy who doesn’t value liberty in the first place.

            2. “There you have just identified the insanity at the basis of your argument: The idea that non-Americans have the same right to be in America as Americans.”

              Since you just made that up in your own head, how about you leave me out of it?

          2. “No thank you”.

            Alas, you can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

            1. Please go read the Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1913 edition, and then come back.

              1. Right… Because me asking you to look at factual evidence which directly contradicts your point is just so not fair.

                1. You didn’t point to a reference. You demanded I go locate the evidence you claim supports your position.
                  No, thank you;.

    3. It would change the argument.

      The Muslim ban would still be wrong, but the purported justification would be slightly less absurd.

      1. What would make a country immigration ban not absurd in your opinion?

        Evidence that people from that country have a history of committing terrorist attacks? Terrorist attacks on US soil? A government that doesn’t share information about its residents who want to immigrate to the US?

        Is there “anything” that would justify a country ban?

        1. “What would make a country immigration ban not absurd in your opinion?
          Evidence that people from that country have a history of committing terrorist attacks?”

          Evidence that NEARLY ALL people from that contry have a history of committing terrorist attacks. Sweden has one Brevik. The United States had one McVeigh. This fact doesn’t say anything at all about other Swedes, or other Americans, respectively.

          Is it reasonable to assume that everybody who was on the airplanes that hit the WTC were terrorists? The only plane used in the 9/11 attacks known to have offered resistance was the one that crashed in Pennsylvania.

          1. Right…

            So, according to your logic, if there’s a 50% chance an individual from a country is a terrorist, you would let them in. Only if “NEARLY ALL people from that contry have a history of committing terrorist attacks” would you not let them in.

            That’s insane.

            1. Here’s a really insane suggestion:

              Don’t assume a person is a terrorist based solely on his/her nation of birth.

              Crazy, right?

            2. Here’s another way to put it:

              Just follow the Golden Rule.

              How would YOU want to be treated if you travel abroad? Would you want to be treated and judged based on your own personal merits? Or would you want to be treated and judged based on broad-brush American stereotypes? Or would you want to be treated and judged based on statistics describing average tendencies only about Americans?

              “Oh, but I’m an individual and should be treated like the special snowflake that I am, but those furriners, they should be treated like the rabble that they are!”

            3. “So, according to your logic,”

              You’re really not good at following logic. Were you already aware of that, or is this a revelation for you?

        2. Is there “anything” that would justify a country ban?

          No.

          Treat potential immigrants as individuals.

          1. Sure, treat them as individuals.

            Here’s Abdul Jammar. He’s got a nice document portfolio he’s happily filled in himself. You can’t check any of the details about it with his native country, because they won’t share the information with you.

            Do you let him into the country? Why or why not?

            1. Ask Abdul for further verification of his claims. If he cannot, then the burden is on him.

              Meanwhile, Abdul’s brother, Mohammed, who can provide reliable third-party verification of his claims that he’s an okay guy and not some terrorist, even though he’s from the same country as Abdul, he gets let in.

              See how this works? Under your plan, both Abdul and Mohammed are left out.

  14. TL;DR Trump bad. Open borders good!

      1. Do you disagree with my characterization of Somin’s position? He’s made it pretty obvious that he is in favor of open borders and against Trump.

        1. So what? Argue with the specifics of this particular post, as others here have done. What do we care about your characterization of Somin? Start your own blog about how terrible he is.

  15. “no one has ever been killed in a terrorist attack on US soil by an entrant from any of the nations covered by [the] travel ban.”

    Technically true due to very careful parsing of words, but BOY that is misleading.

    1. Outside the United States, thousands of Americans have been killed by terrorists from the travel ban countries

    2. Inside the United States, people have been injured by terrorists from travel ban countries

    1. “1. Outside the United States, thousands of Americans have been killed by terrorists from the travel ban countries”

      Good lord.

      How, exactly, does preventing a terrorist from entering the U.S. keep them from killing Americans someplace outside the U.S.?

      1. A. Terrorists from the travel ban countries kill thousands of Americans (outside of America)
        B. Terrorists from travel ban countries have injured dozens of Americans inside the US (and only through luck, didn’t kill them).

        C. By logical addition, it would make sense that since they have the intent, have the skill, and have “almost” killed Americans in the US, that they would kill Americans inside the US, if given the opportunity.

        This idea that you need to wait for a mass terrorist murder inside the US BEFORE you justify a preventative ban from certain countries (despite all the evidence of the danger), it’s rather absurd. It’s like saying “Well, we can’t put our seat belts on until someone we personally knows dies in a car crash because they didn’t have their seat belt on.”

        1. “This idea that you need to wait for a mass terrorist murder inside the US BEFORE you justify a preventative ban from certain countries (despite all the evidence of the danger”

          You skipped over providing any evidence of danger.

          Your argument works like this: The Taliban carried out lots of attacks on Americans. Therefore, we need to keep Malala Yousefsai out of America.

        2. It’s like saying “Well, we can’t put our seat belts on until someone we personally knows dies in a car crash because they didn’t have their seat belt on.”

          The pro-ban position is more like, “Since someone driving a Ford once ran into a schoolbus full of children, then that means the state should ban all Fords from the road.”

      2. How, exactly, does preventing a terrorist from entering the U.S. keep them from killing Americans someplace outside the U.S.?

        You are asking the wrong question. The relevant question would be: “how would it make us safer inside the United States by admitting them here?”

        I should also add that there have been several terrorist plots by people from travel ban countries that were stopped before they were carried out.

        1. “The relevant question would be”

          I cut the irrelevant part, and was left with this.

  16. Funny world. Its now literally legal to kill a baby right up until birth, with only a weak vague discretionary barrier in the way and nobody (in the mainstream media) bats an eyelash. In fact, even though libs once steadfastly maintained that they saw abortion as only a necessary evil its now something to be celebrated by among other things buying tshirts bragging about it and lighting up the WTC.

    On the other hand, a pile of stones, the likes of which has been constructed billions of times over and over throughout history and by its nature only affects people that shouldn’t be here and a highly targeted order that can simply be circumvented by leaving the country, and everybody and their mother and Twitter account is jumping up and down, rending their garments, and rolling on the floor speaking in tongues in fury at this horrific injustice worse than 10 millions space stalins combined. Funny world

    1. Its now literally legal to kill a baby right up until birth

      If you have information about the killing of a single baby, the sole decent and sensible course would be to alert an appropriate law enforcement authority immediately.

      If you are just spouting fictionally based right-wing gibberish, the sole decent course would be to stop interfering with reasoned adult debate concerning matters of public concern.

      1. Unless you are just spouting fictionally based left-wing gibberish, please use science, reason, and logic to demonstrate the difference in the moral worth of a baby before and after it passes through the birth canal.

        1. Before viability, a fetus is a parasite (that’s biology, a science). After viability, but before birth, a fetus is a parasite that could, potentially become an independent organism. This is why, in balancing between the mother’s rights and the fetus’, something legally changes. Prior to viability, the fetus is incapable of independent life, so removing it from the mother invariably causes the fetus to die. After viability, the fetus is capable of independent life, so removing it from the mother does not invariably cause it to die. Therefore, killing a fetus post-viability is the killing of an independent person.

          This has nothing to do with passing through the birth canal. Which is a good thing, considering how many American babies are delivered without making that particular voyage.

          1. “Before viability, a fetus is a parasite (that’s biology, a science).”

            No it’s not. Parasites infect organisms of a different species. That’s biology, a science.

            “This is why, in balancing between the mother’s rights and the fetus’, something legally changes. Prior to viability, the fetus is incapable of independent life, so removing it from the mother invariably causes the fetus to die. After viability, the fetus is capable of independent life, so removing it from the mother does not invariably cause it to die. Therefore, killing a fetus post-viability is the killing of an independent person.”

            Now, go back and look at AmosArch’s post and see which abortions he is talking about. He is very clearly talking about post-viability abortions. So you are supporting AmosArch’s position.

            1. “Now, go back and look at AmosArch’s post and see which abortions he is talking about.”

              Ones that exist in his imagination, apparently, since he thinks all abortions are legal right up until delivery.

              1. Nice spin attempt. Bryan Boitano would be proud.

                And according to the Guttmacher Institute, seven states don’t place any restrictions on abortions based on the age of fetus.

                1. Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management (joint meeting with Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Certain Clinics) has been convened!

                  Carry on, faux libertarian clingers!

                  1. I notice a complete lack of substance to your response. As suspected, you are just spouting left-wing gibberish and can’t actually back up your position with science, reason, or logic.

                    1. Your inability to apprehend something does not establish its lack of existence.

                    2. Kirkland, pollock, and Mcgoop trolls all in one locale.

                    3. “Your inability to apprehend something does not establish its lack of existence.”

                      This is just sad. You spam the board claiming to value science, logic, and reason. Yet you never demonstrate the ability to use any of the three. Put your claimed values into practice. Or just admit that you are full of shit.

                    4. These are your peeps, Conspirators.

                      I’d bet you wish you had stuck with the mainstream rather than aligning with these yahoos.

                    5. Another comment without even attempting a substantive response. It’s sad to see a Reverend in the Church of Exalted Reason so afraid to attempt to defend his views. If this is all your religion has to offer, it is an empty religion indeed.

                2. “Nice spin attempt. Bryan Boitano would be proud.”

                  Whereas your own spin is more reminiscient of Randy Gardner and Tai Babylonia. Who can forget him, trying to jump and falling time and again?

                  1. What spin would that be?

                    I don’t have to spin anything. Your initial attempt to respond failed because you didn’t pay attention to the question asked. It also demonstrated a profound ignorance about biology. Your spin attempt revealed your ignorance about the actual state of abortion laws in America.

                    1. … and Gardner goes down AGAIN.

                    2. James Pollock and Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland, two peas in a pod, impotently lashing out because they are devoid of substance.

                    3. jph12. Unable to refute facts, resorts to guilt by association, fails at that, too.

                    4. Neither you nor Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland have presented any facts for me to refute. Other than your pathetically ignorant claim that a fetus is a parasite.

          2. Before viability, a fetus is a parasite (that’s biology, a science).

            That’s not biology. At all. It’s utterly moronic.

            I expect better from you, James. You shouldn’t sound like Artie, as if you got your education from a Cracker Jack box your toothless sister dad wrote ‘kollij’ on with hir own bodily effluvia.

            Here’s the thing about things ‘legally’ changing–

            Society and the law treat a fetus–pre or post viability– as a human life if no one states otherwise. It is ALWAYS treated as a human life if the mother wants it.

            The ONLY time it’s humanity is stripped away is when the mother wants to kill it–or when some members of society with to preserve the power of women to declare persons non-human for the purpose of abortion.

            And that’s the only time.

            The ‘legal change’ is that in this single instance, it is permitted for one human to decide that another human is not human and eradicate them because they are an inconvenience.

            Does that sound right to you?

            Of course not.

            But is sounds a lot more right when you say it this way–

            The ‘legal change’ is that in this single instance, it is permitted for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

            Do the pretty words change the underlying actions into something pretty?

            1. The silly thing about JP’s definition of parasite, is that even babies that are born are, in effect, parasites as they are utterly dependent on others for the first few years of their life, and in a state of nature dependent on its mother, who breast feeds the baby. For that matter, so are many humans are parasites at the very end of their life.

              Anyway, after much soul searching, I have recently decided that while I think abortion is murder, I’m for it being legal because of the positive side-effects demographically.

              1. “The silly thing about JP’s definition of parasite, is that even babies that are born are, in effect, parasites as they are utterly dependent on others for the first few years of their life”

                “Dependent on others” is not the same thing as “dependent on the mother”. Infants can be, and are, separated from mothers due to a variety of circumstances. This is not invariably fatal to the infant.

                Consult the early history of Caesarian delivery, if you’re unclear on the concept. (Hint: Maddie, you, apparently, are unclear on the concept.)

                My objection is to the folks who are opposed to abortion attempting to impose THEIR choice on other people. I’m not at all opposed to them trying to use reason, persuasion, or appeals to morality to get other people the choose as the would prefer… until they start using deception instead of reason, where here I am talking about the “crisis pregnancy centers” that don’t state up front that abortion is not ever one of the options they will discuss, and that attempt to stall anyone who shows up trying to find out how to obtain one.)

                1. “Dependent on others” is not the same thing as “dependent on the mother”. Infants can be, and are, separated from mothers due to a variety of circumstances. This is not invariably fatal to the infant.”

                  Parasites are not dependent on a particular host and can be passed from one host to another. That, again, is simply science.

                  1. “That, again, is simply science.”

                    This is what happens when you let people get away with calling “creation science” a “science”… people get confused about what is, and what isn’t, science.

                    1. Once again, lacking a substantive answer, James Pollock impotently lashes out.

                    2. If it makes you feel better to believe that, go right ahead.

                    3. Do you still not know what a parasite is, or do you know and just refuse to admit it?

            2. “Society and the law treat a fetus–pre or post viability– as a human life if no one states otherwise. It is ALWAYS treated as a human life if the mother wants it.”

              Duh. It’s also ALWAYS treated as a human life if the mother doesn’t.

              “The ONLY time it’s humanity is stripped away is when the mother wants to kill it–or when some members of society with to preserve the power of women to declare persons non-human for the purpose of abortion.”

              If that’s what you believe, that’s your problem. Go away and learn the truth.

              “The ‘legal change’ is that in this single instance, it is permitted for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.”

              The “legal change” is which of the two people the state sides with. Pre-viability, it sides with the adult. Post-viability, it sides with the fetus.

              It’s not the only place that law picks between two competing people’s interests, in a case where losing means death. For example, in family disputes over whether or not to withdraw mechanical life-support from a person unable to decide for themselves, or deciding if a dead person got dead because of murder, or because of defense-of-self-and-others.

              1. You demonstrate your inability to refute anything I post with every word you write.

                My objection is to the folks who are opposed to abortion attempting to impose THEIR choice on other people.

                My objection is to the folks who are opposed to understanding that sometimes you can’t avoid the consequences of your actions.

                When the only way to avoid those consequences is to kill someone, I would think that this should be obvious to all who are capable of rational thought.

      2. Killing a baby in exactly the same way Dr Gosnell killed babies, and is sitting in prison for his crimes.

    2. If the mother is at risk or the fetus is non-viable, which seems sensible. If it was you, you’d want to build a wall to keep it in.

      1. “At risk” being a VERY subjective and frequently misused metric.

        1. Not everything is about a dopey wall or the brown menace.

        2. Wow, is it? Better let women die, just to be on the safe side.

  17. I can’t help but bring up Justice Stevens and Ginsberg’s concurrence in Stenberg v. Cahart.

    As the opinion plainly stated, “Roe’s central holding…a woman’s right to make
    this difficulty and extremely person and personal decision – makes it impossible for me to understand how a state has any legitimate interest in requiring a doctor to follow any other procedure other than the one he or she reasonably believes will best protect the woman in her exercise of this constitutional liberty.” The opinion held it’s unreasonable to restrict procedures on grounds they are too painful or too gruesome.

    Here, too, in e.g. Hawaii vs. Trump, the Supreme Court has also upheld Americans’ unfettered freedom of choice to decide which aliens get to come in the country and which don’t.

    Given this freedom of choice, what possible interest could anyone possibly have in preferring one method over another? What possible relevance could it’s painfulness or gruesomeness have?

    If the American people have freedom of choice to control who belongs in the American family and to terminate the entrance of would-be members as unwanted, what grounds are there for moralists to grumble about what termination procedures they use or what pain those procedures inflict?

    Stevens and Ginsberg ask the question. It’s a fair one.

    1. Well, first of all individual rights are different from the rights of a segment of the country, even a majority.

      A woman has rights over what procedures she performs on her body. Her neighborhood can’t vote for her to have an abortion, even if she’s the only one who votes against it.

      The truth is, in the big picture, I don’t think you want the people, or the representatives they vote into office, to be able to WILL AWAY your rights as an individual.

      A country doesn’t have the same rights as an individual to make certain choices. I think you are probably happy about this.

      But you might be a total statist. I just don’t think you are.

      1. No, she/he’s not a total statist. Maybe ReaderY is just someone so outraged about abortion that they think it’s hypocritical to be concerned about any other ethical question than that one.

        I could sort of see it….if I literally believed a full-up holocaust was in progress and ongoing for decades, as ReaderY might, I’d probably think worrying about some lesser cruelty was a diversion.

        On the other hand, maybe ReaderY thinks she/he’s got a clever logic trap where if you support abortion you have to support “effectively aborting” immigrants. In which case, it’s a total fail, under the proves-too-much rule.

        1. ” if you support abortion”

          Very few people actually support abortion. The people who oppose abortion keep pretending that anyone who opposes them “supports abortion”.

          1. Very few people actually support abortion

            Exactly.

            They just support the right of women to have unfettered access to having someone perform an abortion on them.

            Well, that’s a mouthful. Wonder if there’d be some way of condensing that.

            Lets’ see.

            Well, there’s obviously ‘They’, and ‘support’, right?

            And what is it they’re supporting? Well, ‘the right of women to have unfettered access to having someone perform an abortion on them’, but that’s too much. Let’s take out modifiers–‘The right of women to have access to an abortion ‘.

            ‘The right of women to have access to an abortion ‘.That’s better, but with ‘They support’, it’s still a bit wordy. You don’t need ‘to have access’–having an abortion means you have access. So, –‘The right of women to an abortion ‘.

            And, intersectionally speaking, it’s not just ‘women, so that goes–

            ‘The right to an abortion ‘.

            But the abortion isn’t really the right–the actual right in question is privacy, so lets get rid of that. What do we have left?

            Well, ‘They, and ‘support’, and ‘an’, and ‘abortion’.

            And they don’t just support one, so we get–

            ‘They support abortion’.

            Wrong again, James.

            1. “Wrong again, James.”

              About what?

              1. Everything, apparently.

      2. The difficulty here is that if you read Roe in light of earlier cases, you will see the Supreme Court itself drew parallels between abortion and aliens. The biggest is the definition of person. When in Roe the court said the word “person” lacked “prenatal application,” it paralleled not only its holding that the word lacked “extraterritorial application” in Johnson vs. Eisentrager, but its reasoning as well.

        Also, its conception of personal autonomy as freedom to make choices paralleled language about national sovereignty. A nation’s choice about whom to admit reflects its autonomy and freedom to control its territory.

        The parallels are there to anyone who looks. The analogy isn’t perfect. But it’s clear that aliens have very limited constitutional rights, if any, to contest a decision to exclude them, and extraterritorial aliens have no constitutional rights at all to contest a decision not to admit them.

        And the language and rhetoric of people who appeal to morality in opposition to immigration control policies is similar to that of people who appeal to morality in opposing abortion. Both claim that because it’s “obvious” that the respective targets of each decision are people just like us, the judicial precedents giving Americans pretty much unfettered freedom of choice in each respective area are wrong, unamerican, unjust, etc. People who are anti-choice on immigration often appeal to religious sensibilities, just as in abortion.

        1. People who are anti-choice on immigration often appeal to religious sensibilities, just as in abortion.

          Cue the soundtrack .

          Bonus.

  18. I should also add, the purpose of the travel ban wasn’t just about terrorism. It was more about basic vetting and crime. You can look at the reasons for each country here. In most cases, the ban was because authorities in that country either can’t or won’t cooperate with our requests for criminal background checks.

    Why these 7 countries are listed on Trump’s travel ban

    1. Shush now with easily retrieved facts. Idiots are yelling racism.

    2. You aren’t facing the fact that Trump stated very clearly that he wanted a Muslim ban.

      The misrepresentation is when you say “the reasons…” rather than “the excuses…” or “the pretexts…”.

      1. “You aren’t facing the fact that Trump stated very clearly that he wanted a Muslim ban.”

        And kept calling what he got instead of a Muslim ban as a Muslim ban.

        That’s not racism. It’s a different flavor of stupid.

      2. That may have been what he said, but it is not what is on the piece of paper the court was to rule on.
        If it was a de factoMuslim ban, then it could be used to stop any Muslim from entering.
        Do you think a court would accept that exclusion, because of what he “clearly stated”?
        Leave the mind-reading to Karnac, the magnificent.
        Seek help for your TDS.

        1. That may have been what he said

          ‘May have been what he said’ . . . or was what he said?

          Why the weasel words?

        2. “That may have been what he said, but it is not what is on the piece of paper the court was to rule on.
          If it was a de factoMuslim ban, then it could be used to stop any Muslim from entering”

          Keep in mind that there were three tries between what Trump started out with and what finally got through the courts. If they just wanted to block this small number of countries, why did they originally write it so it covered so many other, unrelated persons?

      3. You aren’t facing the fact that Trump stated very clearly that he wanted a Muslim ban.

        Not exactly.

        He made his more detailed explanation first, about how we need a better vetting process to insure that terrorists aren’t sneaking in among the refugees and asylum seekers.

        He then shortened this, for campaign rhetoric purposes, to a ‘muslim ban’ because Muslims keep doing terrorist stuff all over the world and people understood the shorthand.

        Except leftists.

        Because you’re idiots. But that’s redundant. To be a leftist is to wallow in idiocy. As so many of you do. Proudly and with no shame.

        1. “He made his more detailed explanation first, about how we need a better vetting process to insure that terrorists aren’t sneaking in among the refugees and asylum seekers.”

          Which was laughed off by people who knew anything about the vetting process in question, and eaten up whole by people who didn’t.

        2. Who knew that Azathoth was such a fan of Dead or Alive

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNiXGX2nLU

        3. See?

          Idiots.

      4. And did not enact a Muslim ban.

  19. Womp womp, Bull Cow.

    1. Half-educated, bigoted, right-wing Mini-Me is back!

      (As is customary in this circumstance, Artie Ray asked me to say ‘hey’ to the Volokh Conspiracy censorship board for him.)

      1. Still a broken record I see. I also find your tripe amusing considering that you know absolutely nothing about my education, and that your educated god, Bull Cow, couldn’t tell the difference between a bull and a cow while in the midst of a venomous diatribe against the “ignorance” of others.

        1. poor troll script.

        2. Still a broken record I see.

          Oh, the irony.

  20. I have a jacket that keeps elephants away. It works. No elephants ever attack me.

    Clearly the travel ban is keeping us safe in much the same way.

    The only difference is, my jacket doesn’t cause any human suffering that I know of.

    1. Your jacket may not cause human suffering, but your contributions to this page do.

    2. Keep it up. Best commenter here today…

    3. You have not yet been crushed by elephants, forcing us to have to scroll past your insipid babble.

      Your jacket causes immeasurate human suffering.

      But there are things besides elephants…..

  21. Given Trump’s lifelong history of cheating on every wife he’s had; why on earth would anyone think that maintaining a nuclear family would be remotely important to him? That’s just dumb. (This does not mean I agree with Trump’s ban. I think it’s a stupid policy, a policy that hurts a lot of people while not protecting America from actual terrorists, and is mean-spirited to the extreme. I’m just pointing out that Trump is a racist, he ran on stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric, so we should not be the tiniest bit surprised by this.)

    We broke it; we bought it.

    1. “We broke it; we bought it.”

      Then why does Putin have the receipt?

    2. MAGA!

      1. Still complaining that America isn’t great?

    3. It protects America from low IQ third worlders, even if they’re not terrorists. Let me know when it’s keeping out high IQ whites from Europe.

      1. It’s keeping out high IQ whites from Europe, who’d prefer not to associate with the likes of you, the prevaricator-in-chief, and other twits.

  22. Trump v. Hawaii is consistent with nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent.

    1. Really, then how exaxtly did Jimmy Carter stop all immigration by people from Iran in 1979?

  23. New research from the Cato Institute suggests that as of this January, the policy has prevented more than 9,000 family members of U.S. citizens from entering the United States since the Supreme Court allowed the policy to take full effect in December 2017. That number includes more than 5,500 children and just short of 4,000 spouses.

    If they don’t like being separated, they can go back to their home countries.

    1. +1000

    2. The U.S. citizens are already here, and their foreign relatives are not. Everyone already is in their home countries.

      1. The US citizens are welcome to visit their foreign relatives.

        1. Well that’s nice and all, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with people going back to their home countries.

    3. For 90 days, not forever. The ban was for 90 days. The court fights it was drew it out and the phony pretense the ban was a permanent for anyone except those who were a clear danger.

      1. Executive Order 13780, the current Travel Ban, was issued on March 6, 2017, and upheld by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2018. The Travel Ban is still in place for 7 of the 8 countries on the original list.

        1. Um… 90 days, not 90 CONSECUTIVE days. That good enough? OK, then, not Earth days, Mercury days. Let me just look that up…A little over 1400 hours per day. Yeah, until further notice, we totally meant Mercury days. I mean, we always meant Mercury days… why would anyone think we meant something else?

  24. The “no terrorist attacks have occurred from here” argument is a non sequitur. Future security threats have nothing to do with past attacks, never mind the ridiculous notion that national origin is somehow related to terrorism. The issue remains that the banned nations cannot reliably assist us in identifying travelers from their nation.

    Also, if this is a Muslim ban, it’s a pretty bad one considering that >90% of the world’s Muslims are unaffected.

    1. Those lines are also extremely carefully worded. You can’t say “no terrorism”, you have to say no fatal acts of terrorism in the United States. We all see through the deception in this sort of language. The only question is how many different acts of terrorism are being covered up by such lame attempts to mislead people.

      1. “Those lines are also extremely carefully worded. You can’t say “no terrorism”, you have to say no fatal acts of terrorism in the United States.”

        The key point is that being from a place doesn’t make someone into a terrorist. I’m old enough to remember when parts of the U.K. had a bunch of terrorists in them. I also recall that most of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. were carried out by… Americans.

        1. If that’s the key point, then say that rather than trying to mislead people with Clintonesque wordplay.

          No one said everyone from those countries is a terrorist. But no one has laid out the benefits Americans will gain from taking the risk that one traveller from those countries is a terrorist either.

          If it makes sense to undertake any effort at all to prevent terrorism in the US, then it probably makes sense to be careful who you issue travel visas.

          But my main objection was the totally out-of-bounds Hawaiian and Ninth Circuit court activism, egged on by people like Ilya Somin. Rational basis means rational basis, regardless of whether you like the President or have a sad story about wishing you could go somewhere.

  25. The ban is too underinclusive. It needs to exclude most genetically low IQ mestizos from Latin America as well.

    1. Since you seem to be hung up on IQ scores, how ’bout we purge the entire US?

      Of course, most Tennessippians would have to leave.

      But just think how much better off we’d be!

      Actually, that’s not a bad idea.

      1. Luckily, the Constitution protects Americans. It does not protect non-Americans from our government regulating immigration pursuant to the US Constitution.

        1. Why is that lucky? How does U.S. citizenship make a delusional, incapable half-wit from Alabama, West Virginia, Mississippi, or Wyoming any better than an immigrant?

          1. How does U.S. citizenship make a delusional, incapable half-wit from Alabama, West Virginia, Mississippi, or Wyoming any better than an immigrant?

            A half-wit is still twice as smart as you, hicklib.

      2. Apedad, if we gave tests and did as such, it would fall most heavily on black southerners, who as a race are one standard deviation in IQ less than whites, on average. But I bet you didn’t know that when you assume that backwards folks in the hinterlands are white opioid addicted former coal-miners.

        You’d be in the second or third wave sent off to the gulag if somehow intellectual clones of you achieved political power. The dissidents are sent off first, then the true believers who became disillusioned.

        1. “if we gave tests and did as such, it would fall most heavily on black southerners, who as a race are one standard deviation in IQ less than whites”

          Black southerners are a race, now?
          IQ testing proves who is good at taking tests. It has nothing to do with actual intelligence.

          “I bet you didn’t know that when you assume that backwards folks in the hinterlands are white opioid addicted former coal-miners.”

          I believe meth is preferred by former coal-miners.

          1. IQ is to intelligence what making your free throw shots are in basketball, which is a proxy of actual talent that cannot be fully measured. But there sure is a lot of overlap, that is people who make their free throw shots a lot are generally good basketball players, exceptions like Shaq aside. It is also why many colleges use what is, in effect, an IQ test, called the SAT, to determine aptitude. IQ tests work, imperfectly, but they work. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

            Point is, blacks are one SD less than whites on IQ…AS TESTED….so if the stupid idea of giving people IQ tests to determine who would head off to the gulag was implemented, the stereotypical liberal’s favorite downtrodden group, blacks, would be the first on the train. The problem with their thinking is, and this would include you I surmise, is that they think that those that don’t agree with them are stupid and evil.

            Maybe, just maybe, you should try thinking more than just one layer deep.

            1. ” It is also why many colleges use what is, in effect, an IQ test, called the SAT, to determine aptitude. IQ tests work, imperfectly, but they work. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.”

              Standardized testing has been very, very good for me. I got into every law school I applied to, despite having a 4th percentile undergraduate GPA amongst all applicants, because of ALSO having a 90th percentile LSAT.

              I’ll say it again. IQ tests measure ability to take IQ tests, and nothing more. They have nothing to do with intelligence.

              1. IQ tests measure ability to take IQ tests, which is highly correlated with academic success and capacity to succeed in technical fields.

                Which is hardly surprising, since that’s what IQ tests were designed to be correlated with.

                1. “IQ tests measure ability to take IQ tests, which is highly correlated with academic success and capacity to succeed in technical fields.”

                  Neither of these are true as stated, as much as people wish to believe them (mostly, people who are good at taking tests, but even some who aren’t have bought the snake oil).

          2. IQ testing proves who is good at taking tests.

            LOL.

      3. The average IQ of the white population in Tennessee is not materially lower than any other state. The average IQ of mestizo Latin Americans is far below that of American whites.

      4. Of course, most Tennessippians would have to leave.

        So you’re in favor of most of the nation’s African-Americans being shipped out?

  26. Truth:
    The people here supporting the travel ban are the exact same people who would support an actual Muslim ban, and the primary reason why they support the travel ban is because it is a partial Muslim ban with a fig leaf of a rational justification.

    1. your citation fell off.

    2. Not true. But if you defined “actual Muslim” as subscribing to certain murderous and oppressive dictates of the Quran, then a Muslim ban would be a good thing.

      1. I think we’d be better off if religious intolerants of all flavors magically went away.

        But that’s not the world we have.

    3. racebaiterjeff mind reads WrongFeelz in others yet again
      boring

  27. Americans don’t matter if you can tell a sad story, apparently. Courts should forget “rational basis” and start ruling based on the emotional resonance of whatever story anyone from anywhere wants to tell. Out: law reviews. In: movie reviews.

    The perfectly crafted judicial system for the new era where no one ever grows up.

  28. Enough already. Out of the over 40 muslim majority countries it bars entrance from five, one with no central government (Somalia), three embroiled in war (Yemen, Syria and Iraq) and the greatest state sponsor of terror in the world (Iran). All it does is say the US needs to be granted additional time to fully vet those entering from these countries. It also bans EVERYONE, not just Muslims so stop pretending the ban is somehow discriminating based religion. The court did not err because Congress gave the President power to control immigration he deemed necessary. The ban was a 90 day ban. If Democrats would have opted to let it go, it would have came and passed without any fanfare. All the ridiculous opposition made it a much larger issue than it ever should have been.

    1. Protecting Americans is so racist!

  29. Americans balk at the idea of socialism because we have come to accept the power of Federal regulatory agencies. There are very good examples of great ideas with terrible results. The best example is CAFE standards. For decades the Feds have mandated auto makers build vehicles which get ever increasing gas mileage to reduce pollution, which is a great objective. As a result, on the positive side, we have seen a tremendous improvement in safety equipment, powertrain technology and traffic laws. On the negative side, by being forced to use more plastic and lighter gauge steel and aluminum, we have also seen a huge increase in traffic deaths and serious injuries. It is estimated you are 30% more likely to be killed in a modern car involved in a serious accident today than 20 years ago because the car does not have the structural integrity of older vehicles. “Crumple zones” can only limit the force of impact, not negate them. Physics is physics and all the good intentions cannot change the laws of motion

    1. ” “Crumple zones” can only limit the force of impact, not negate them. Physics is physics and all the good intentions cannot change the laws of motion”

      One of the major reasons fuel economy has risen over the last four or five decades is that many of the cars have less mass. Even trucks (one brand brags about their “military grade aluminum”) are lighter, overall than they used to be.

      What does physics have to say about the force of impact when you get hit with a less massive object?

      1. One of the major reasons fuel economy has risen over the last four or five decades is that many of the cars have less mass. Even trucks (one brand brags about their “military grade aluminum”) are lighter, overall than they used to be.

        This isn’t accurate. At all.

        The main reason for the increase in fuel efficiency is the use of more aerodynamic designs and far more efficient engines that get more horsepower overall (a Toyota Camry V-6 has more horsepower than Magnum PI’s Ferrari) and equivalent or better mpgs, not because the vehicles weigh less. In fact, all the safety equipment, particularly the airbags and their mechanisms, is what contributes to the weight increase.

        1. Speaking from within the automotive industry, though: If we didn’t have those mileage requirements, we could make the cars even safer, and at considerably less cost. Safety features have weight and volume, after all, and CAFE indirectly limits both.

          Which is why, for instance, you can’t get a five point harness as an option, even though they’re much safer than standard lap and shoulder belts. Nothing strong enough to attach it to, hard points add weight.

          Unfortunately, basically every technique for making stronger lightweight structures compromises energy absorption, the more efficiently material strength is deployed, the less is left over to absorb energy.

          1. “If we didn’t have those mileage requirements, we could make the cars even safer, and at considerably less cost.”

            Sure. If you want to increase safety by almost 100%, just take the wheels off.

            1. Once again, lacking a substantive answer, James Pollock impotently lashes out.

  30. “As Bier points out, there is no plausible security rationale for these restrictions.”

    I spy
    A lie.

    1. It’s in your first sentence, isn’t it?

    2. Tell it to the Obama administration, which identified these countries as specific security risks.

      1. For people who demonize the Obama administration, you sure like holding up their actions as the standard for judging current and future administrations.

  31. “there is no plausible security rationale for these restrictions”

    Aren’t all five of those countries ones with significant in-country terrorist operations at the time the policy was implemented (or, in Iran’s case, simply Super Hostile as a state)?

    “No plausible security rationale” for “banning people coming here from Iran*” seems a bit hard to believe; the plausible security rationale is the one stated and implied in the order – “those countries have unreliable identity records and are full of actively hostile organizations, so greater risk for hostiles on a tourist visa”, more or less.

    I don’t agree with that solution to that problem [it is a problem, but not a super major one, or one insurmountable without a near-flat ban], or think it’s wise policy.

    But that’s not what “plausible” means.

    (* Ditto North Korea, though since NK is more a prison-state than the others, that seems mostly symbolic?

    And evidently nobody cares about the NK ban anyway.)

    1. “‘No plausible security rationale’ for ‘banning people coming here from Iran*’ seems a bit hard to believe; the plausible security rationale is the one stated and implied in the order – ‘those countries have unreliable identity records and are full of actively hostile organizations, so greater risk for hostiles on a tourist visa’, more or less.”

      Applying this logic, then we shouldn’t allow Americans to freely travel to America, either. No national ID, rampant identity fraud, and “full of actively hostile organizations”.

      1. Because, after all, Americans don’t have any more right to travel to America than foreigners?

        The underlying assumption just keeps exposing itself.

        1. “The underlying assumption just keeps exposing itself.”

          Then stop exposing yourself.

  32. When conservatives say “It’s not a Muslim ban” they’re implicitly conceding that an actual Muslim ban would be unconstitutional. It wouldn’t be. The U.S. can ban Muslims, or anyone else, from immigrating. It juts can’t stop people here from practicing their religion. Period.

    1. I’m not conceding anything of the sort, but it’s still not a Muslim ban. Clearly not, because it applies to non-Muslims from the same countries, which is actually a bit of a problem, since some of those countries have ongoing genocides of non-Muslim minorities.

      1. Agreed, but it’s important to say in that case, “But even if it was…”

  33. Sucks being you, doesn’t it.

  34. “The Ongoing Gratuitous Cruelty of Trump’s Travel Ban”

    I convict thee of WrongFeelz!

    Not gonna read an article with such an inane title unless the peanut gallery convinces me to do so.

    1. Made it without reading the article.

      Reason is a clown show.

      1. Yes, it’s painfully obvious that you would never read or watch anything with which you might possibly disagree.

  35. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here….. http://www.mesalary.com

  36. Could the “Travel Ban” possibly be worse than Ilya Somin’s constant whining about it and President Trump in general?? 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.