It's a temporary ban on travel from specific countries, while vetting procedures are examined and revised (this is the stated purpose in the order). After 90 days, the ban ends for all countries but Syria, with immigration resuming under whatever new vetting procedures have been adopted. Preferential treatment will be given to persecuted religious minorities (which can include any Muslim minority denominations). Syria is also only temporary, but it's indefinite, given that it is a 'hot' region of the world, and vetting could be more difficult.
At worst, this is a paranoid waste of time, after which immigration authorities will conclude that no new procedures need to be adopted. After the 90 days, travel will resume. I have read the executive order, and see no problem with it. While there may be legal issues with it (as law is often complex and arcane) there is nothing in there I would consider morally objectionable. Maybe add a deadline by which Syrian immigration must be reconsidered, rather than an open-ended indefinite ban. To put Trump next to Holland almost electing a man who wanted to ban mosques and the Quran is disingenuous bullshit. Regarding this situation Trump is, at worst, paranoid. Geert Wilders was a facist, plain and simple.
I am worried, because this kind of reaction to Trump is what gave that facist Wilders a chance. Whenever anything happens that might so much as inconvience Muslims, a certain part of the world throws a fit, calling it racist and bigotted. When the left refuses to take any consideration of problems that are the result of mass immigration of people from a part of the world where people support the death penalty for apostasy (and harsh penalties for blasphemy), they leave a big gaping hole for people like that Dutch Facist to come into. When the Southern Poverty Law Center declares Majiid Nawaz a man trying to reform his religion in a more peaceful direction an "Anti-Muslim Extermist" they disallow reasoned discourse, which can only leave room for unreasoned discourse.
There does not appear to be any serious political anti-muslim movement in the US, at least not yet. But if the only choice presented to people is between the SPLC view of the world, and the Geert Wilders view of the world... then I couldn't blame anybody for voting for Wilders, because the world has gone mad and presented them with two insane perspectives. The best way to avoid that mad dichotomy is to stop treating things like Trumps travel ban as if it were fueled by nothing more than bigotry.
0
Have you read the executive order?
It's a temporary ban on travel from specific countries, while vetting procedures are examined and revised (this is the stated purpose in the order). After 90 days, the ban ends for all countries but Syria, with immigration resuming under whatever new vetting procedures have been adopted. Preferential treatment will be given to persecuted religious minorities (which can include any Muslim minority denominations). Syria is also only temporary, but it's indefinite, given that it is a 'hot' region of the world, and vetting could be more difficult.
At worst, this is a paranoid waste of time, after which immigration authorities will conclude that no new procedures need to be adopted. After the 90 days, travel will resume. I have read the executive order, and see no problem with it. While there may be legal issues with it (as law is often complex and arcane) there is nothing in there I would consider morally objectionable. Maybe add a deadline by which Syrian immigration must be reconsidered, rather than an open-ended indefinite ban. To put Trump next to Holland almost electing a man who wanted to ban mosques and the Quran is disingenuous bullshit. Regarding this situation Trump is, at worst, paranoid. Geert Wilders was a facist, plain and simple.
I am worried, because this kind of reaction to Trump is what gave that facist Wilders a chance. Whenever anything happens that might so much as inconvience Muslims, a certain part of the world throws a fit, calling it racist and bigotted. When the left refuses to take any consideration of problems that are the result of mass immigration of people from a part of the world where people support the death penalty for apostasy (and harsh penalties for blasphemy), they leave a big gaping hole for people like that Dutch Facist to come into. When the Southern Poverty Law Center declares Majiid Nawaz a man trying to reform his religion in a more peaceful direction an "Anti-Muslim Extermist" they disallow reasoned discourse, which can only leave room for unreasoned discourse.
There does not appear to be any serious political anti-muslim movement in the US, at least not yet. But if the only choice presented to people is between the SPLC view of the world, and the Geert Wilders view of the world... then I couldn't blame anybody for voting for Wilders, because the world has gone mad and presented them with two insane perspectives. The best way to avoid that mad dichotomy is to stop treating things like Trumps travel ban as if it were fueled by nothing more than bigotry.