> And he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US.
Isn't "banned muslims" the wrong choice of words here? You could enter US as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia still.
Isn't "banned muslims" the wrong choice of words here? You could enter US as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia still.
"Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’"
“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”
“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...
Obama had an act in place to make it difficult for people fro these countries or who had visited these countries to get a visa. Trump expanded the "getting a visa should be difficult" part to "let's ban people from these countries regardless of if they already have Green Cards or dual citizenships".
Obama's act, though again not including countries funding and harboring terrorists, only made it difficult to get a visa which sort of makes sense but is still stupid because it didn't include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. the ACLU protested this act but it was passed through Congress anyway
The ban is only for arabs in very unstable countries and Iran. There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war and Iran is adversary, so there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all.
They way I see it there is no fundamental right of foreigners to enter US. It is a privilege given by the discretion of the executive branch.
There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one. I do not know how a nation where 70% of the population calls itself christian could turn away refugees from war-torn countries.
> there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all.
Top US universities and tech firms beg to differ. The US got the best universities and leading tech firms exactly because of immigrants. Paul Graham's essay about this is interesting: http://paulgraham.com/95.html
Well, if we're going all humanitarian, the humanitarian thing to do would be to stop bombing these countries in the first place.
But you are presenting it as if you only get to do one humanitarian thing. That is incorrect. You can do both.
If you are trying to argue that a previous president's mistakes are a justification for this president's mistakes, I disagree.
Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might.
It all depends on the perspective in which you view the other countries.
You're moving the goalposts. First you say there is no good reason, then you reframe it 'in the world of realpolitik'. If you want to support your original assertion, you need to argue why realpolitik is the only valid worldview.
> Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might.
Again, you're moving the goalposts by adding if we define US interest as unchallenged US might and by adding to further your national interest.
Even if you accept those premises, your conclusion would need more arguments. Educating citizens of a country might further the US national interest if they stay in the US after their studies or return to their country and oppose their leadership.
Also - any US leaning dictator getting a pass. Like Saddam, Noriega, Pinochett. Which met their demise after refusing to obey their CIA overlords.
For Iran - if Iran us enemy - which the current administration thinks so, giving their citizens education is bad unless you ban them from exiting US after getting said education. And prevent them from taking the know how there.
If Iranian people had the means to overthrow the theocracy they would have already done it.