In the court of public opinion, however, the evidence suggests pretty strongly that Trump's order was, in fact, little more than a thinly disguised attempt to ban Muslims from the Middle East—except for those from a few favored allies. Pretzel-bending arguments aside, it's really pretty obvious what's going on here.This is probably a good time to remind everyone that the first immigrants to this country, the Pilgrims, came here because they were fleeing religious persecution. So it is at best a sick joke that The Stain is blocking immigrants on religious grounds. It is at worst, unconstitutional --- no laws regarding the establishment of religion.
So, why is The Stain doing this? Ostensibly to protect us from terrorism. Is it likely to be effective? The data demonstrate pretty conclusively no. The conservative Cato Institute did a study of terror attacks on U.S. soil between 1975-2015, and concluded the following:
From 1975 through 2015, the chance of an American being murdered by a foreign-born terrorist was 1 in 3,609,709 a year.But wait, it gets worse. The seven countries targeted by The Stain's ban are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. According the Cato study, terrorists from those countries have killed exactly ZERO Americans.
So, the threat posed by these people is essentially zero. It's worth pausing here to observe that the vetting already in place by the Obama administration (and the second Bush administration, and the Clinton administration, and the first Bush administration . . .) was pretty damn solid. Unfortunately, the harm DONE to these people is somewhat greater:
Confusion turned to panic as travellers were told they were unable to board flights to the United States. Some passengers checked in but were then barred from boarding at the gate.
Others were hauled off planes. Others arrived at American airports only to be detained for hours. Some were refused access to legal assistance.
The order saw students at top American universities barred from entering the country.At this point, the reasonable person would be moved to their nearest airport to protest The Stain's lunacy. But some may still argue, like The Stain's own Comical Ali impersonator, that it's better to be safe than sorry: "What happened if we didn't act and somebody was killed?" It's true that there are no guarantees. There is indeed a possibility, no matter how small, that one of the people currently detained by the ban would eventually kill an American some day, if we let them in the country. Doesn't that possibility justify the ban?
The answer is pretty obviously no. Because the essentially-zero probability that The Stain's actions might actually be protecting someone must be weighed against the absolute certainty that he is driving recruits into the waiting arms of ISIS:
In conversation on social media, various jihadists have said the executive action unveiled America's "hatred towards Muslims," according to US-based SITE monitoring service. A pro-ISIS account on Telegram -- an encrypted app favored by the militant group -- praised Trump as "the best caller to Islam," signaling the President's ban would attract new believers.One thing you can say for The Stain: he promised he'd do this, and he's kept his promise. Large-scale protests, thousands of travelers inconvenienced, families kept apart, confusion among state, local and federal officials, and all in support of a policy which actually aids our enemies. Unfortunately, all of The Stain's policies are likely to turn out about this well.
As a final observation, I'll note that many of The Stain's supporters are asking why there weren't similar protests when Obama banned Iraqi refugees in 2011. The simple answer is: he didn't. This is just yet another #AlternativeFact the right-wing media is rolling out, which The Stain's supporters are only too happy to parrot back on social media.
Also, the ACLU and CAIR managed to win partial relief in the courts, but they need your help. They can't fight The Stain for the next four years all by themselves, so please give what you can: