How Effective is Trump's "Muslim Ban"?

Yesterday, Trump affirmed a ban on entry of individuals from 7 "detrimental" countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. This ban seems incredibly disproportionate and misguided.

Firstly, this doesn't really seem to be a "Muslim ban" - it doesn't include the country with the largest population of Muslims (India), nor the largest Muslim-majority country (Indonesia), nor Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Secondly, there have been very few terrorist attacks in the U.S. by Muslim immigrants. Even fewer from the countries actually affected by this ban. When we look at the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers we see that 15/19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, none of the 9/11 hijackers were from the 7 countries subject to this ban. There are more Americans in ISIS than Iranians in ISIS.

Thirdly, the threat of terrorism is clearly most likely to arise in the domestic context - that is to say, home grown terrorists. This ban does nothing to address this issue, other than further marginalise American Muslims and provide further fuel to ISIS/radical elements. Curiously, if we want to address the problem of home grown terrorism, dealing with Saudi Arabia's funding of Wahabbism across the globe might be a good place to start. Many intelligence agencies have recognised the problem of Saudi-funded radicalisation across the West, with both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump acknowledging this problem (quote below) - yet, for some reason, what Trump called "the world's biggest funders of terrorism" (Saudi Arabia) did not manage to make it onto his "Muslim Ban", ostensibly designed to protect Americans from terrorism.



https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/w...slam.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-you...b_6501916.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6763366.html

Lastly, I think it is worth noting the pure insanity of the ban. This ban applies to green card holders who are legal residents of the U.S., that, upon returning from leaving the country (for holidays, etc), may find that they cannot reenter their home country.

Actually, that would be "number of people killed by people using guns".

How many of them were suicides,accidental?

Do you have the stats for US citizens murdered by foreigners/immigrants (legal or otherwise) for the same time period?

Wouldn't want people thinking you cherry picked the stats to support your point would we?

I don't get why the countries with the most hardline populations - Egypt, Saudi and Pakistan aren't included?

I don't get why the countries with the most hardline populations - Egypt, Saudi and Pakistan aren't included?

Sorry not aware with US system; is green card not citizenship? Or I'm assuming it's equivalent to Leave to Remain in the UK.

That sucks for the student, will waste a whole year of studies at the minimum. If he just put a restriction on refugees I actually wouldn't have much of a problem with it, restricting students and people with long standing jobs already is just dumb.

"My wife is a permanent resident w a green card". See point 3:



https://twitter.com/RealLucasNeff/status/824441408396275712

The number of people killed in homicides using guns is about 10-13,000 a year.

I dont believe or I havent seen figures that make the distinction on whether they are foreigners or not.
They do record the number of people who die as a result of terrorism.



The number for 2012,13 and 14 were 6,5 and 17 respecively.

I think his point was you have much more chance of being shot and killed than dying due to terrorism. No need to cherry pick to give an idea of risk. There are also about 33,000 road traffic fatalities per year.

Thank you for clearing that up.

The fact that US citizens kill other US citizens is immaterial to the debate.

The US government has a duty to protect US citizens, it has no duty to allow non US citizens into the US.

If I were a US citizen i would view Trumps travel ban as a good start, but be disappointed on how limited it was.

Also, and I might be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure this isn't a blanket Muslim ban. It's a temporary ban on immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (persecuted religious minorities can come through though).

Its not irrelevant when looking at the actual risk , that is the point. On that basis you might as well ban any non americans (including tourists and business people) from entering the US.

The US has a duty to look out for the best interests of its citizens. that would mean making the best decisions and aboding those which are disproportionate or innefective.

Would you wanting him to be banning all muslims including those from the UK?

Some Muslims pose a risk to the West, until a foolproof way of deciding which ones, why take the risk?

Muslim immigration is not vital to the wellbeing of the Western world.

Its not Trumps decision to ban Muslim immigration into Britain.

To answer your question, yes i would like to see an end to Muslim immigration into the UK.

Islam is incompatible with Western democracy.

Some Muslims pose a risk to the West, until a foolproof way of deciding which ones, why take the risk?

How do you know who is Muslim?

Chances are if they come from a Muslim country, they're Muslim.

Afghanistan for instance, for some reason there are not a lot of Jews left there.

Who knows why?

So if someone of Iranian citizenship who holds a green card went to London to visit his ill mother, he is banned from the US for 30 days or more????? Why? Based on what reasons?

Chances are if they come from a Muslim country, they're Muslim.

Afghanistan for instance, for some reason there are not a lot of Jews left there.

What is a Muslim country?