MrDollarBills wrote:Rainyy wrote:
1. No, Trump is not a fascist, or Hitler.
2. No, this is not a ban on Muslims.
3. No, this is not the worst catastrophe in American policy since slavery.
4. No, this is not "un-American," at least not compared to the real, historical America.
5. No, Trump's business connections have nothing to do with the countries selected.
I say fair enough on points 1, 3, and 4.
Points 2 and 5 are open to warranted scrutiny, considering the fact that the man SAID he'd execute a ban on Muslims (his words)
The plain meaning of "Muslim ban" is that Muslims will not be able to enter the country. Factually this is not the case because Muslims can literally still enter the country. In fact, the vast majority of muslims, coming from the vast majority of countries, can still enter the country. This is indisputable. On top of this, a Christian, atheist, or whatever from one one of these seven countries would be similarly prohibited entry during the next three months.
Calling this a "Muslim ban" is like calling a ban on Cigars alone a "Tobacco ban." The phrasing is highly political - purposefully careless and imprecise so as to exaggerate the scope of Trump's policies. For all the ridicule and admonishment over the "alternative facts" soundbite, it's unfortunate how the media has absolutely zero problem misrepresenting the truth.
Furthermore, just because Trump used the words "Muslim ban," does not make his current actions so. If I say "I will climb to the top of Mount Everest," get 500 feet up the mountain from base camp, and give up, I have not climbed Mount Everest.
As an aside, lesser journalists have a nasty habit of falling back on "fact-checking" so much so that they miss the big picture. Absolutely Trump and his advisors should be called out for falsities and lies; but it does not end there. There's almost a fallacy going on that if a narrative, policy, whatever is based on one falsity, then the entire thing is therefore false. Alternatively, if select facts from that journalist's preferred political party are true, then that entire narrative is accurate.
How we reason with "facts" is just as important as the facts themselves - sometimes more important. Consider the phrase, "dolphins are mammals." It's a factual statement. Yet, the argument "Obama's immigration policies are good because dolphins are mammals" is a hideous non-sequitur, despite its invoking of fact.
Similarly, it is a fact that many Muslim people are being adversely affected by Trump's policies. Yet, it is a non-sequitur to use that fact as a basis for saying there is a "ban on Muslims."
MrDollarBills wrote:it goes without saying about the conflicts of interests that surround him.
You're question-begging by saying he currently has conflicts of interests. Legally, Donald Trump does not have conflicts of interests. If you want to argue that you believe he still has business ties that could potentially be conflicts of interest (or use a non-legal definition) that is fine. But, keep in mind, so has ever other President to varying degrees. Got to be careful of double standards.
It's a big accusation to say that Trump is selecting countries on the basis of his business interests, when you have not accounted for other explanations. The Obama Administration designating the identical seven countries and, as I mentioned, our long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia, cut against your argument. In the act of designating these countries itself (not so much in the halting of immigration), Trump is acting as any other administration would. You need to bring more evidence to the table than pure speculation. There's also some double standard in regards to Trump's business ties. The Clintons had plenty of competing business interests as well. Same with the majority of Presidents.
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated to Hilary's Clinton campaign by the way. But I really doubt the media would be questioning Clinton for "conflicts of interest" in any favorable treatment of Saudi Arabia, which would undoubtedly happen under her hypothetical administration, as it is status quo policy.
MrDollarBills wrote:Then we have the whole "religious test" and Trump wanting to "prioritize Christian refugees" and you're really hard pressed to sell this as something other than a Muslim ban.
This is another disingenuous narrative from the Left (not saying the Right doesn't do exactly the same stuff). They are making it seem like Trump is adding a "religious test," but, in fact, Asylum applications in a way already do have this requirement (and nothing is actually changing anyway). Applicants must demonstrate a "well-founded fear of persecution" as a member of a "protected class." Religious groups are one of these classes. Asylum officers will often look for substantiation of belonging to this religious group and then the persecution they suffer or reasonably fear to suffer must emanate from this class. Nothing is actually being changed about the asylum test itself; there is certainly no added "religious test."
What is happening is that priority is being given to applicants claiming religious status, where their religion is a minority in that country. Note: this does not effect the chances of success as "test" would seem to imply, but rather the timeline of receiving an asylum interview.
This policy is clearly designed to benefit Christians in the Middle East, although it will in practice benefit minority religions in a variety of countries. It will be interesting if or how this affects sub-classifications like Sunni and ****. It will presumably not affect timelines for those persons claiming fear of persecution under non-religious classes (political affiliation, gender (domestic abuse), sexual orientation), which many refugees in the Middle East will qualify for.
I personally do not like this policy, but it's not a "religious test," and it isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Here's the justification:
1. Christians are underrepresented as refugees relative to population size. For instance, in Syria, Christians are about ~10% of the population, but by some estimations make up only .5% of all refugees. They are under-represented twenty-fold. There's certainly some question over how many Christians actually apply versus non-Christians as a percentage of those populations, but I do think there might be some bias in the process.
2. The logic of prioritizing minority religions: minority groups are more susceptible to persecution than non-minority groups; therefore they should be given priority in the asylum process.
The second-point is interesting to me. Does that rationale sound familiar to anyone else? To me, it sounds a lot like some of the arguments the United States Left uses in regards to race, gender (etc.), and social justice. It's amusing to me that domestically we recognize the vulnerability of minority populations, but deny the logic when applied here.
Now, I personally believe blanket policies like this are bad, and everything should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I really don't know whether Christians are more vulnerable than Muslims in these regions, though they are seemingly underrepresented in the Asylum Process. And it's pretty clear Trump is trying to score political points by raising the Christian issue. Still, as bad as this policy is, please avoid hyperbole and imprecision.
