It would have been inconvenient to ban Saudi Arabia, despite their Wahabi conservatism and the fact that they funded 9-11, cuz Jared and the Prince are buddies, and the Saudis are rich. Same for Dubai and the UAE and the other wealthier Arab/majority Muslim nations, including Egypt, where they persecute Christians and some 90% of women suffer female genital mutilation.JXL said:Jinx 2 said:The CATO Institute is not typically emotionally hysterical, Kyle.Kyle said:Again with the lack of self-awareness. Your own post contradicts you:Jinx 2 said:Are the people at the CATO Institute who remember Trump's calling for a Muslim ban and have tracked his performance on that goal "weak-minded"?Kyle said:
The president or no Republican opposes immigration. Just like there was no "Muslim ban." That's just cheap fake news designed to enrage the weak minded.
https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18
On December 7, 2015, President Trump called for a Muslim ban. This ban later turned into "extreme vetting" policies, whichaccording to Trumphad the same goal. Now nearing the 2-year mark of his administration, an accurate assessment of these policies is now possible. All the major categories of entries to the United Statesrefugees, immigrants, and visitorsare significantly down under the Trump administration for Muslims or applicants from Muslim majority countries.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1401/establish-ban-muslims-entering-us/
One of President Donald Trump's most controversial campaign promises was to establish a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Whether that was the intention of a series of executive orders after he took office is widely debated. But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world.
About a week after taking office, Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. refugee program. He indefinitely stopped the entry of Syrian refugees. Courts blocked the order's implementation after states sued alleging it violated constitutional religious liberties.
Trump subsequently signed two more executive orders, each a revision of the previous one, in response to multiple lawsuits challenging their legality. Opponents of the orders said they amounted to a Muslim ban. The Trump administration argued they were not banning immigration based on religion, and were rather driven by national security concerns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/
Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that a sizable segment of the Muslim population has "great hatred towards Americans."
"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump is quoted as saying in the statement. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
"But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world."
No one is disputing that the president supported limiting entry from countries with extremely high levels of terrorist support both private and state-supported. You do understand the difference, right?
The reason people get frustrated trying to discuss issues with you is because you're disingenuous.
If you show an executive order that would have banned all Muslims from entering the country, then I'll acknowledge I'm incorrect. Posting emotional hysteria from emotional hysteric sites is not helpful.
Trump called for a Muslim ban during his presidential campaign.
He tried to enact one soon after he was elected, using means his advisors thought might pass muster with the court.
The first two didn't, but he kept trying.
The facts that his initial 2 plans didn't succeed because it was obvious to federal judges that they were Muslim bans seems to have escaped you. Talk about disingenuous. A president states he wants a Muslim ban and then bans travelers from several Muslim majority countries and then tries to say that it's not a Muslim ban, it's a terrorist ban.... And you buy that?
Ultimately, SCOTUS allowed a partial ban on travelers/immigrants. That case, detailed here on on SCOTUSblog, another source that's clearly not hysterical, dealt with the third proposal his administration advanced. It passed 5/4.
Your snide and superior tone has looks even worse when you're just flat wrong. You do understand that all Musltims aren't terrorists? That many of the people "banned" were students, professors and other working professionals who lived and worked here or were married to American citizens? And you have observed that we're doing a damn good job of terrorizing ourselves with no help from Muslims, right? If we really wanted to stop terrorism in the U.S., we could start with making sure Joe Average can't get his grimy little hands on assault weapons and ammo by ordering it online.
So he wanted a "Muslim ban" which omitted 43 out of 49 Muslim countries?
The fact that he omitted so many countries also indicates this was rhetorical theater meant to appeal to his howler monkey base and not a real policy move. It obviously worked.
Think North Korea would still be on the list now that Kim's Trump's bff?
Trump's Arab allies are now squabbling.
