That's a non-sequitur, as this order isn't targeted at "Muslim immigrants". Furthermore, the categories "Muslim immigrants" and "natives" both contain substructure. That means that a simple comparison between the two can be misleading.
Please note I'm merely pointing out a flaw in your argument, and not taking a side on whether the order is a good or bad idea.
Not sure whether you're acting naive to prove a point, but the countries represented aren't majority Muslim by accident - they were picked for a specific reason. Not to mention, Trump himself alluded to a "Muslim Ban" with a similar structure before, as did multiple aides. He's run on a platform of xenophobia. It's not a stretch whatsoever to make that point - everyone understands why the poster is labelling it that way.
The implication that the person that posted is injecting ideology into that comment is ironic, since willfully choosing to ignore the political context of the ban is just as bad.
> the categories "Muslim immigrants" and "natives" both contain substructure
Yes, all language does.
>not taking a side on whether the order is a good or bad idea
You're taking a side by turning a blind eye to the ideological ramifications and context of the ban. "I'm just playing devil's advocate" is always problematic because it purports that injecting something dangerous like this into the conversation "doesn't count".
The people doing this think it qualifies, and this is a case where we should probably believe them.
But he didn't...
Instead, he or his team chose to use a list of seven high-risk or non-cooperative nations drawn-up by the DHS over a year ago for the purpose of suspending Visa-waiver travel. That affected ~20% of the Word's Muslim population.
1. Trump talked a lot about banning Muslims from the US.
2. Giuliani said the first travel ban was what came out of Trump asking him to implement the "Muslim ban" legally.
3. Neither the first one nor this new one is a very effective Muslim ban.
What are we to conclude from these facts?
We could conclude that, despite the insistence of Trump that he was going to implement such a ban, and a Trump insider saying that the first order was their first attempt at it, that order was not in fact intended as a Muslim ban.
Or we could conclude that it was intended as a Muslim ban, and the people responsible either don't understand that Muslims and Arabs aren't the same thing, understand but don't care because it's pandering to their supporters, or understand and see it only a first step in a process of getting a full ban in place.
Given how everyone in this circus has behaved so far, my money is firmly on door #2.
I point this out strictly as a response to your reading of the GP's post, not as support of the travel ban.
My point was that there are 50 Muslim-majority countries. So if you want to argue against the ban, argue that visitors / immigrants from those countries commit less crime than "natives", rather than arguing that Muslim immigrants in general commit less crime than natives.
>> the categories "Muslim immigrants" and "natives" both contain substructure > Yes, all language does.
The point here being that different "native" demographic groups commit crimes at different rates; and I'm guessing it's likely that different "Muslim" immigration groups commit crimes at different rates. e.g. approximately 1% of Chechen immigrants to the USA are terrorist bombers.
These are are the countries where the US is fighting wars against ISIS, and Iran.
I don't support the ban, but I can see the point of being careful about accepting immigrants from areas with active enemy armies.
The particular language of this order may not be. But we've learned to take Trump "seriously, not literally."
In that light, the above quote is a falsehood.