The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

[Syne]

The only reason people can even call it a "Muslim Ban" is because the Muslim theocracies (in effect if not actual) in those countries ensure their populations are overwhelmingly Muslim, with severe penalties for apostasy. If you banned immigration from Israel, you wouldn't be able to call it a "Jewish Ban", since so many non-Jews are allowed to live and even hold political office there. So it's only because these Muslim countries lack diversity that this straw man of an ethnic/religion ban can even be entertained.

 

[billvon]

The only reason people can even call it a "Muslim Ban" is because the Muslim theocracies (in effect if not actual) in those countries ensure their populations are overwhelmingly Muslim, with severe penalties for apostasy.

And because Trump promised one, and because there is a clause in the executive order saying non-Muslims will be given priority over Muslims.

 

[iceaura]

No, not really. She acted improperly so paid the price. As argued, the proper thing in her position, given her opinion, was not to carry out his orders but to resign.

She acted in strict accordance with the duties of her job. Resignation is not one of those duties. Assessing the legality and ethical substance of Executive Orders, and directing her staff accordingly, is.

But her opinion is not law, is not necessarily correct, and in this case was contrary to the opinion of her boss

It is her official opinion as the AG, and that overrides the opinion of the President. Trump is not the AG. Her opinion can be overridden by a court, but not by the President.

But since the AG serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed any time, I'm not sure he needed to do anything but remove her.

There are some consequences from the timing. The AG has powers that cannot be easily delegated, and Trump's immediate agenda may involve them - but if so he would need a reason for removing the AG in advance of pursuing that agenda. So setting up a dismissal like that is a possible motive, for timing reasons.

But I tend to agree: more likely it's just that he's impulsive, and completely inexperienced, and in a hurry, and screwed up - feeling his way, in a sense. He met frustration, and fired it.
He's a quick learner, though - he'll get smoother.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is circulating on Facebook. Give it a read.

From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:

"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.

What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event."

Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.

When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.

Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.

Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.

My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.

I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.

If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.

But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.

A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.

If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.

Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is also the possibility that Bannon/Trump made use of the exec Muslim Ban order to test how effective an irrational and unconstitutional order can be.

 

[Sarkus]

She acted in strict accordance with the duties of her job. Resignation is not one of those duties. Assessing the legality and ethical substance of Executive Orders, and directing her staff accordingly, is.

It is her official opinion as the AG, and that overrides the opinion of the President. Trump is not the AG. Her opinion can be overridden by a court, but not by the President.

I think with Trump that resignation may become a duty of many positions. But I understand, and will need to revise my view of the responsibilities of the AG. Thanks.

There are some consequences from the timing. The AG has powers that cannot be easily delegated, and Trump's immediate agenda may involve them - but if so he would need a reason for removing the AG in advance of pursuing that agenda. So setting up a dismissal like that is a possible motive, for timing reasons.

But I tend to agree: more likely it's just that he's impulsive, and completely inexperienced, and in a hurry, and screwed up - feeling his way, in a sense. He met frustration, and fired it.
He's a quick learner, though - he'll get smoother.

I, for one, don't mind too much if it's a rough or smooth journey - makes it interesting, for sure. It's the direction that I find more worrying.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I, for one, don't mind too much if it's a rough or smooth journey - makes it interesting, for sure. It's the direction that I find more worrying.

The direction this President and his administration team is very obvious. If one is to reasonably draw conclusions by what has happened, said and actioned over the course of the election and since inauguration it is very clear.

There is no vagueness to it. So much so, the time for "worrying" is almost over...the time for action is now and present.

Either Americans take back their Government, reinstall the constitution to the place it belongs or be damned for ever....
There is simply no choice.

As clearly demonstrated in the media interviews tonight, for example, when discussing the destructive way Trump dealt with our Democratically elected Prime Minister, Trump is hell bent on acting in ways that are extremely unconscionable and utterly confusing. To be blunt he is bullying his alliance partners with threats, extortion and crazy inconsistency.

His diplomatic corps here and no doubt around the globe are in total tatters and disarray.
Right now the USA Australian alliance is being seriously questioned as to it's real value for the first time in our history.
The huge USA sacrifice in WW2 against the Japanese in the Coral sea is no longer held in the high regard it once was. You don't tell our PM he is to Fuck Off (imply) and get away with it!

As to the state visit planned for the UK, as much as I would hate to see the Queen be put though it, I have full confidence she and her son Charles and the people of the UK will be able to deal with this low life, Mister Trump quite effectively. In fact I look forward to see the news of his "successful" (sarc) visit.

Fix it USA or lose it all...

end of rant

 

[Tiassa]

The only reason people can even call it a "Muslim Ban" is because the Muslim theocracies (in effect if not actual) in those countries ensure their populations are overwhelmingly Muslim, with severe penalties for apostasy. If you banned immigration from Israel, you wouldn't be able to call it a "Jewish Ban", since so many non-Jews are allowed to live and even hold political office there. So it's only because these Muslim countries lack diversity that this straw man of an ethnic/religion ban can even be entertained.

That excrement should win awards for Best Dishonesty. Seriously, this is the thing that gets me: Why do the people who support it need to impose this political correctness? What's the matter? Ashamed of yourself?

You should be.

That is some disgusting human malice, Syne.

 

[spidergoat]

The only reason people can even call it a "Muslim Ban" is because the Muslim theocracies (in effect if not actual) in those countries ensure their populations are overwhelmingly Muslim, with severe penalties for apostasy. If you banned immigration from Israel, you wouldn't be able to call it a "Jewish Ban", since so many non-Jews are allowed to live and even hold political office there. So it's only because these Muslim countries lack diversity that this straw man of an ethnic/religion ban can even be entertained.

The fact remains they are mostly Muslim, and this ban is a Muslim ban. Trump specifically makes exceptions for Christians. In the US, they would have the freedom to choose their own religion or none.

 

[Sarkus]

His diplomatic corps here and no doubt around the globe are in total tatters and disarray.
Right now the USA Australian alliance is being seriously questioned as to it's real value for the first time in our history.
The huge USA sacrifice in WW2 against the Japanese in the Coral sea is no longer held in the high regard it once was. You don't tell our PM he is to Fuck Off (imply) and get away with it!

I am indeed looking forward to the "Australian ban" that he will order shortly.

Interestingly, after his cordial chat with the Oz PM, the Trumpster posted a tweet about the Obama-agreed deal to take 1,200 or so refugees currently housed by Australia on a couple of islands in PNG, and referred to it as taking "thousands of illegal immigrants". The man can't seem to help himself, with his hyperbole and inaccuracy.

As to the state visit planned for the UK, as much as I would hate to see the Queen be put though it, I have full confidence she and her son Charles and the people of the UK will be able to deal with this low life, Mister Trump quite effectively. In fact I look forward to see the news of his "successful" (sarc) visit.

The royal family will unfortunately (try to) do nothing to cause any sort of political scene/embarrassment, and the whole visit will just work to stroke his ego. He'll undoubtedly tweet about how his visit came far earlier in his term than any other US President, how the Queen was more in favour of him than any other US President, how the food was that much better than any other US President had been given, all because he is the greatest US President ever.
I fear the visit, when it eventually happens, will run all too smoothly for him.

 

[Tiassa]

¿#SillySpice?

​

The fact remains they are mostly Muslim, and this ban is a Muslim ban.

Narrative is key, of course, and I think we all know I appreciate Steve Benen's↱ context and capabilities. Still, though―

The controversy surrounding Donald Trump's Muslim ban was still going strong when Sean Spicer reached the White House briefing-room podium yesterday, but the press secretary surprised many by rolling out a new argument the public hasn't heard before.

"It's not a travel ban…. When we use words like 'travel ban,' that misrepresents what it is. […]

"I think the president has talked about extreme vetting and the need to keep America safe for a very, very long time. At the same time, he's also made very clear that this is not a Muslim ban, it's not a travel ban."​

Yes, the new White House pitch is that their ban isn't actually ban―and we should all stop using the word Trump World has decided it doesn't like.

Or more accurately, we should all stop using the word Trump World has decided it doesn't like anymore. The problem with Spicer's pushback―well, one of the problems anyway―is that White House officials, up and down the ladder, have repeatedly used the word "ban" in recent days to describe their own policy.

At different times in recent days, Donald Trump, Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway have all referred to the president's executive order as a "ban." The president himself called it a "very, very strict ban." The Trump administration's Customs and Border Patrol website, as of this morning, calls it a "ban." White House materials have referred to the policy specifically as a "ban" in writing.​

―the Trump administration is making that part easy:

But wait, it gets funnier.

Spicer was eventually asked yesterday by NBC News why we shouldn't use the word "ban" if Trump himself has made repeated references to his own policy as a "ban." The White House press secretary responded, "He's using the words that the media is using…. I think that the words that are being used to describe it are derived from what the media is calling this."

Got that? It's the media's fault the president is using a word he doesn't want to use. Those rascally news organizations apparently tricked him.​

Here's the catch: Donald Trump received a significant vote. Say what we will about totals, but 62.85 million is not a number to simply ignore. And this sickness is exactly #WhatTheyVotedFor. And that includes the part where Sean Spicer comes out and tries to con them.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "When is a ban not a ban? When the White House says so". msnbc. 1 February 2017. msnbc.com. 2 February 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2kwlDdf

 

[Randwolf]

Interestingly, after his cordial chat with the Oz PM

Yes, it was a productive call despite Trump's anxiety - he was worried because he can't "speak Australian". However, he had to hang up when Mexico refused to pay for the call...
[inspired by twitter]

 

[Syne]

And because Trump promised one, and because there is a clause in the executive order saying non-Muslims will be given priority over Muslims.

Where?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Oh, I see..."minority religion". And? They are clearly the most threatened in such countries. Would you rather deny them refuge...just so it's blind justice?

 

[Syne]

That excrement should win awards for Best Dishonesty. Seriously, this is the thing that gets me: Why do the people who support it need to impose this political correctness? What's the matter? Ashamed of yourself?

You should be.

That is some disgusting human malice, Syne.

Apparently you didn't read the actual EO either. And now you're trying to use an appeal to emotion (shame) in lieu of facts. The true malice is what goes on in these countries, where apostates can be murdered, simply for converting from Islam. And you want to import that kind of malice wholesale.

The fact remains they are mostly Muslim, and this ban is a Muslim ban. Trump specifically makes exceptions for Christians. In the US, they would have the freedom to choose their own religion or none.

Where?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Oh, I see..."minority religion". And? They are clearly the most threatened in such countries. Would you rather deny them refuge...just so it's blind justice?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The true malice is what goes on in these countries, where apostates can be murdered, simply for converting from Islam. And you want to import that kind of malice wholesale.

Syne perhaps you need to have a look at the process of assimilation when migrants land, make their home , and have kids.
You seem so offended by cultures and religions that practice so called abhorrent acts (according to your standard) but you offer no solution except isolation and confrontation.

Normally in an assimilation migrant program those that come into a culture with contrary views, rarely speak the language and live out the rest of their lives as guests of a host nation. However their children, the first generation offspring grow up not as guests, but as cultural members, learning the language and adapting better to cultural mores and laws. But even this is still not the end of it. It normally takes the next generation , that is to say the kids of the kids (grandkids of the original migrant) before issues such as you mention "apostasy" etc get resolved.

If one bothers to do the observation you can find that in most cases for example the use of the Hijab by Muslim women disappears by the 2nd generation and in men the need to pray to Mecca generally disappears about the 3rd generation.
Basically you can transform a religious/racial divide by inviting the refugee to live among you and time, compassion and need does the rest.
Segregation and apartheid prevents change from occurring.

Assimilation generally only works over generations, 60-70 years for a family unit.

The more refugees taken in the more persons have to assimilate with their host countries culture. Those refugees invariably have families back home.

So it is obvious that if we accept refugees we are in fact transforming their place of origin by default. ( a cultural/religious conflict fought silently and passively in the background over many generations.)
The Syrian refugee crisis will inevitably lead to a better, more modern secular Syria but only if the refugees are taken in and allowed to assimilate over 2-3 generations.

By accepting refugees as the Statue of Liberty promotes the USA transforms the world...

 

[iceaura]

Oh, I see..."minority religion". And? They are clearly the most threatened in such countries. Would you rather deny them refuge...just so it's blind justice?

Sunni Islam, especially Wahabi, is a persecuted minority religion in several of the countries listed - such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria. So by your interpretation of the EO its persecuted followers should receive preference. Right?

 

[Kittamaru]

Apparently you didn't read the actual EO either. And now you're trying to use an appeal to emotion (shame) in lieu of facts. The true malice is what goes on in these countries, where apostates can be murdered, simply for converting from Islam. And you want to import that kind of malice wholesale.



Where?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Oh, I see..."minority religion". And? They are clearly the most threatened in such countries. Would you rather deny them refuge...just so it's blind justice?

So because someone who is Christian is threatened, they need to be given refuge... but someone who is Muslim and being threatened (be it because they refuse to participate in terror attacks, refuse to support oppressive regime, etc), they should be denied because... they are Muslim.

Guess what - that makes you Islamaphobic then... and that shit is fucking unconstitutional. There shall be NO religious test in the United States. Period.

 

[Tiassa]

Behind the Excuses (as in ... You are falling behind.)

​

Apparently you didn't read the actual EO either. And now you're trying to use an appeal to emotion (shame) in lieu of facts. The true malice is what goes on in these countries, where apostates can be murdered, simply for converting from Islam. And you want to import that kind of malice wholesale.

Between your excuses and what Trump's team tells me, well, at least they're Trump's team. Please see my prior post in this thread on this subject↑.

Now here's the fun part ... well, okay, the nearly° fun part:

Yes, the new White House pitch is that their ban isn't actually ban―and we should all stop using the word Trump World has decided it doesn't like.

Or more accurately, we should all stop using the word Trump World has decided it doesn't like anymore. The problem with Spicer's pushback―well, one of the problems anyway―is that White House officials, up and down the ladder, have repeatedly used the word "ban" in recent days to describe their own policy.

At different times in recent days, Donald Trump, Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway have all referred to the president's executive order as a "ban." The president himself called it a "very, very strict ban." The Trump administration's Customs and Border Patrol website, as of this morning, calls it a "ban." White House materials have referred to the policy specifically as a "ban" in writing.

But wait, it gets funnier.

Spicer was eventually asked yesterday by NBC News why we shouldn't use the word "ban" if Trump himself has made repeated references to his own policy as a "ban." The White House press secretary responded, "He's using the words that the media is using…. I think that the words that are being used to describe it are derived from what the media is calling this."

Got that? It's the media's fault the president is using a word he doesn't want to use. Those rascally news organizations apparently tricked him.

(Benen↱)​

I'm sorry, Syne, but I just can't subscribe to your #AlternativeReality. The problem with either you or Mr. Spicer is that believing you invokes the paradox of how to deal with known faleshood. That is to say, if we believe you, then you are unbelieivable as an effect of believing you.

So instead of getting all caught up in the distraction of useless and extraneous paradox, it's easier to just recognize that Mr. Spicer is completely full of shit, as are any such defenses that suggest what was deliberately calculated is just some manner of pure accidental outcome.
____________________

Notes:

° If fascism is fun! then wannabe fascism is would-be fun! Or ... er ... ah ... something like that.​

Benen, Steve. "When is a ban not a ban? When the White House says so". msnbc. 1 February 2017. msnbc.com. 2 February 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2kwlDdf

 

[Quantum Quack]

Kittamaru
Like you probably also, I have seen about 6+ waves of refugee migration here in Australia.
post ww2 1946-54 (various European Displaced persons - My own father included)
then in time order

• Greek
• Italian
• Vietnamese
  
• Former Yugoslavia ( Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo etc)

and now our latest two...

• South Sudanese ( predominantly Christian)
  
• Muslims.... ( first time religion is a hidden refugee class)

Of all the waves the last two have proved most challenging due to the severity of cultural differences and the severity of the violence and hardship they are most often fleeing.
so we have had Greekaphobia, Italiaphobia, And so on since the end of ww2...

It will take another 60 years or so (2 generations) before the latest two rounds of refugees assimilate into a single multi cultural society.

 

[Kittamaru]

Kittamaru
Like you probably also, I have seen about 6+ waves of refugee migration here in Australia.
post ww2 1946-54 (various European Displaced persons - My own father included)
then in time order

• Greek
• Italian
• Vietnamese
  
• Former Yugoslavia ( Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo etc)

and now our latest two...

• South Sudanese ( predominantly Christian)
  
• Muslims.... ( first time religion is a hidden refugee class)

Of all the waves the last two have proved most challenging due to the severity of cultural differences and the severity of the violence and hardship they are most often fleeing.
so we have had Greekaphobia, Italiaphobia, And so on since the end of ww2...

It will take another 60 years or so (2 generations) before the latest two rounds of refugees assimilate into a single multi cultural society.

I am only 28, but I have seen newcomers to our area assimilate quite readily; the challenge is to get people to stop being assholes and stop being afraid of things they don't understand.