Muslim Ban

Herr Gropenfuhrer has imposed a ban on immigration from 7 Middle Eastern countries. The number of Americans killed by immigrants from these 7 countries comes to a TOTAL of 0. None. Zero. Zilch. As for the countries not included in the ban, several THOUSAND Americans have been killed by immigrants from those countries. Interestingly, the countries not included in the ban all have a Drumpf hotel. Coincidence? I'll let you be the judge.

Muslim is a religion. He did not ban a religion. He temporarily banned entry into our country from those 7 Middle Eastern countries until the vetting process can be looked at and verified. He is trying to keep American citizens safe from Radical Islamic Terrorists!

Just curious why you didn't flap up and down when BO banned immigrants from Iraq for 6 months in 2011?

Flap up and down? I'm trying to imagine what kind of animal, vegetable, or mineral flaps up and down. A bird, possibly? Best not to get too descriptive before I guess what you must look like as you celebrate this shameful practice.

And by the way, President Obama is not involved in this fiasco. I don't care for your constantly comparing a situation I abhor to another situation to which you feel I should have objected; however, I'll give you a comparison if that manner of discussion suits you best:

You hadn't come into this world when we turned thousands of Jewish refugees away, the majority--or all--of whom were returned to Germany where they were murdered by gas, disease, or starvation. Although very young, I remember newsreels being an important part of American's lives, and they showed us the results of our inhumanity.

I believe you are taking the creature's word and spin rather than delving into the truth of the matter.

Muslim is a religion? Thank you for the definition.

Your comparison of Obama's 2011 action and Drumpf's 7-country ban on all immigrants is an apple-oranges comparison. In 2011, two Iraqi refugees in Tennessee plotted to send sniper rifles, Stinger missiles and money to al-Qaida operatives waging an insurgency back home against U.S. troops. This clearly represented a specific "clear and present" danger. Obama responded by suspending the processing of new immigrant applications from Iraq for 6 months; immigrants with visas that had already been vetted and approved were not affected. Contrast this with Drumpf's banning ALL immigrants, including green card holders, from 7 countries. I point out again that the number of Americans killed by terrorist attacks by people from these countries is ZERO. These are 2 clearly different actions. See now why I didn't "flap up and down" in 2011?

Well, maybe he didn't outright ban Muslims, but that's only because he was told there was no legal way to do it. Giuliani stated that Trump asked him to find a legal way to ban Muslims and he found the next best alternative: Giuliani on Muslim ban

Doc,

The seven nations affected by Trump’s executive order came from the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015. The 2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 named Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. The 2016 update added Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.

The seven countries were listed as a result of security reviews conducted by President Obama's security deputies. Both laws mentioned above were signed into law by President Obama. President Trump's order did not create new law (only Congress can do that); it was to carry out laws already signed by President Obama.

There is not a ban on Muslims entering the United States. Thousands of Muslims are still legally entering the U.S. from up to 40 other Muslim-majority countries. And there is NO overall ban of green card holders from the seven mentioned countries, though re-entry of those persons may require additional vetting.

You wrote: " I point out again that the number of Americans killed by terrorist attacks by people from these countries is ZERO. "
Did you forget Benghazi? Or Paris? Or Brussels?

And if you meant no attacks within the U.S. then consider the following from Politifact:
"... there have been at least three non-deadly attacks in which the perpetrators were from Iran or Somalia, said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

One of those examples includes the November 2016 attack at Ohio State University by a Somali refugee who had lived in Pakistan before coming to the United States. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, was shot dead by a police officer after he slammed his car into pedestrians and injured others with a butcher knife. The FBI said it would investigate the attack as a 'potential act of terrorism.'

In September 2016, Dahir Adan was shot dead after stabbing nine people in a Minnesota shopping mall. Adan was identified by his father as Somali but born in Kenya, moving to the United States when he was a child.

Another incident was in 2006, when Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar ran a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd of people at his alma mater, the University of North Carolina. Thinking he would be killed during the attack, Taheri-Azar left a letter in his apartment saying he wanted revenge for the deaths of Muslims across the world caused by the United States, the AP reported. A naturalized citizen born in Iran, Taheri-Azar in 2008 plead guilty to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced for up to 33 years in prison."

Do you honestly believe that it is wise to allow people from countries that openly support Al-Qaida or ISIS (or where these organizations openly operate) or countries that have declared jihad upon the U.S. to move freely among us?

If anyone is actually interested in reading it, here is the full text of the Executive Order , in which neither "muslim" or "Islam" is found.

So why no ban on Saudi Arabia (most of the 9/11 hijackers were from here), Egypt (where Benghazi is located), Pakistan (bin Laden hideout with likely state support or knowledge) or Afghanisan (home of the Taliban)?

Benghazi is in Egypt?

Drumpf's Muslim travel ban was instituted by executive order. He could have put any countries on the list that he wanted. That he didn't include countries from which terrorists came and actually killed several thousand Americans on our soil strikes me as strange. Apparently, you think the fact that the excluded nations contain Drumpf's business interests is OK and is pure coincidence.

Of course, I'm only talking about terrorist attacks on U.S. soil! Isn't preventing such attacks on the U.S. the alleged reason for the travel ban? So, you found 3 instances where immigrants from the banned nations attacked Americans here at home. There were no fatalities in any of these attacks. I have stated this several times, so I'm not sure what your point is. It certainly doesn't undermine what I've stated.

You wrote: "Do you honestly believe that it is wise to allow people from countries that openly support Al-Qaida or ISIS (or where these organizations openly operate) or countries that have declared jihad upon the U.S. to move freely among us?" Of course I don't and I didn't say that I did. The vetting process is intensive and can take up to 2 years. Do you really, REALLY think there are terrorists in this country moving "freely among us?"

This ban will be seen in the Middle East by many that the U.S. is at war with Islam. That is a basic tenet of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Our twit president has just handed them a good recruiting too and has made the country and the world less safe.

Badger,

Good question. I've asked that myself. One possibility is that there was no basis in existing law for those countries as there is for the seven. I see that as a failure of the Bush II and Obama administrations.

My apologies, Doc, for responding to Allen's post which was meant for you. Not sure where my mind was at that time.....

"Benghazi is in Egypt?"

Last night in my distracted brain it was. Apparently it's moved back to Libya today. Ok, so how about why not Egypt, home of Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Mohamed Atta? Point still stands.

Doc,
Yes the travel ban was instituted by executive order. No he could not have (legally) put any countries on the list that he wanted. It doesn't strike me as strange that he didn't include other countries from which terrorists came because there was no legal basis to do so. The seven countries affected by the order were selected " pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)", which refers to the two laws I mentioned above that were enacted under the Obama Administration. That no other countries were listed under those laws is a failing in my estimation that goes all the way back to Bush 41 if not further.

You wrote earlier in reference to what you called an "apple-oranges comparison":
"In 2011, two Iraqi refugees in Tennessee plotted to send sniper rifles, Stinger missiles and money to al-Qaida operatives waging an insurgency back home against U.S. troops. This clearly represented a specific 'clear and present' danger. ... These are 2 clearly different actions."
No one was killed in that instance. There was no attack on our soil (in fact there was no attack at all). And yet you considered that a "clear and present danger". Then in the three instances where terrorists on our soil tried to kill but failed, you seem to dismiss the danger there. I guess you could say that they were "clearly different actions" since in the incident you cite two people merely plotted to do harm and in my three examples, harm was actually done. So plotting is dangerous. Running over people with an SUV and stabbing people is not.

You wrote: "Isn't preventing such attacks on the U.S. the alleged reason for the travel ban?"
Yes that IS the reason, and since they've already proven their intent to do harm over there (Europe), why on Earth would you suggest that it is safe to allow them to come over here? And yes I really, REALLY think there very likely are terrorists in this country moving "freely among us". Given that you cannot prove that there are none, how safe is your point of view on this matter?

And the U.S. IS at war with radical Islam because they've been at war with us for decades. They don't need recruiting tools. This action doesn't make them hate us any more than they have all along. Letting them into our country certainly doesn't make the country and the world any more safe.

Just because we think that Trump is the worst choice possible for the position he holds, we should not dismiss out of hand something he happens to get right now and then.

Dan,

You've put a lot of words in my mouth in your post and I think I should respond to that issue first.
1. I did not say or imply "Running over people with an SUV and stabbing people is not.." dangerous nor did I dismiss the danger presented by the 3 attacks you listed.

2. "..why on Earth would you suggest that it is safe to allow them (terrorists) to come over here?" In fact, I didn't suggest that we let terrorists freely enter our country.

3,"Letting them (jihadists) into our country certainly doesn't make the country and the world any more safe." No, it doesn't and I again didn't say jihadists should be allowed into our country.

Let me clarify my view on this ban. First, the vetting process of immigrants is extensive and has been effective, given the very small number of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. You and I are far more likely to be killed by a white Christian terrorist than by a Muslim terrorist. A white Christian recently shot and killed Muslims in a mosque in Quebec. Should we halt immigration of white Christians from Canada? Of course not.

The Obama ban in 2011 and the current ban are not the same. Obama perceived what he believed to be an imminent threat stemming from the now infamous "Bowling Green Massacre" and stopped processing NEW applications from Iran. Iranians who had already been vetted, had green cards, etc. were NOT affected by the ban. Now, contrast that to Drumpf's ban, which, incidentally, is being struck down in Federal Court almost as I write this. Without any apparent evidence of an increased possibility of a terrorist attack in the U.S., he wakes up one morning and announces he's halting ALL immigration from 7 Muslim countries. I would again note that terrorists from those countries have killed ZERO Americans, though, as you have pointed out, they have been involved in 3 attacks.

We are not (or shouldn't be) at war with Islam: we are at war with ISIS, al Qaeda and other groups of that ilk. There are undoubtedly young Muslims out there who, while not yet radicalized, this indiscriminate ban will convince them, as they are being told by the jihadists, the the U.S. is at war with ALL of Islam. This ban is obviously providing propaganda that can be used by jihadists to bring in new recruits. We ignore/deny this at our own peril.

If Drumpf does get something right, I hope I am open mined enough to give him credit. However, this ban is probably unconstitutional, it is un-American and, in my opinion, just plain wrong.

Thanks for your clarifications, Doc. Regarding points 1 - 3, it did *seem* to me that you were dismissive of the danger (I know certainly that you didn't suggest that we allow jihadists/terrorists into the country). Perhaps the impersonal nature of written communication fails to accomplish fully what face to face conversation would allow. Our views of the vetting process do seem to differ in that you are confident of its effectiveness while I am not so certain. The relatively few number of attacks may point to an effectiveness or they may be the result of a long incubation period (the 9/11 attackers were in country for years before the attacks). We know that a number of attacks were averted by domestic intelligence, which while bringing a measure of safety also reveals that there have indeed been jihadists among us.

Your point that the 2011 ban differs from the current one appears to be based on allowing or not allowing current visa and green card holders access. There was indeed a brief period of confusion caused by poor communications with those charged with implementing the halt, but most current visa and green card holders were allowed access before judicial intervention. Regarding the constitutionality of the order, since it was as mentioned before based on current laws, those laws would first require constitutional review.

I'm all for ensuring that our vetting processes are effective and thus favor the review. There may be a better way to accomplish that result than a full halt, and I'm among those who believe that the implementation of this particular method was sorely lacking in proper communication and preparation. There certainly has been a great deal of hue and cry over the issue with an equally great deal of misinformation fed to the public by both sides of the issue. My point is primarily to ask people to look past the partisan bickering and get down to the root issue, which IMHO is keeping folks on this side of the pond safer. European countries are certainly reviewing and in many cases regretting their earlier relaxed position toward immigration from those countries.

We do differ in our view of the ongoing war with ISIS and al Qaeda. It seems that you segregate these groups and others like them from Islam, but they all are as I said in my last post, radical Islam. None of them are part of any other religious worldview, and there are precious few ways of picking anyone out of a crowd to say who is or who is not a radical unless we have evidence of prior radical activity.

All this said, please let me clarify my feelings on the plight of refugees. It breaks my heart to see the horrors inflicted on the peoples of those regions. Muslims themselves are greater in number of those that have been maimed and killed by radicals than those of other faiths. I hold the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty to be sacred, and I wish we could take in all those who long for the kind of life with which we are blessed here. Wisdom tells us that if we tried to care for all, we eventually would be able to care for none.