Talk:Travel ban
Better article title
The problem with "Travel ban" is it sounds permanent, while it's actually a 90 to 120 day suspension. It is temporary. A related problem is that its opponents call it a "Muslim travel ban" - accusing Trump of "racism" (meaning unconstitutional religious discrimination). It's not a "ban on Muslims", is it? --Ed Poor Talk 11:35, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
- Good question, Ed. But I think Trump and his supporters use the term "travel ban," so it might be confusing to call it anything else.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
- It's a ban/suspension of immigration from certain countries, which just happen to be Muslim-majority. But since it's aimed at countries, it's wrong to call it a "Muslim travel ban".
- By the way, I haven't done careful research and record-keeping on this, but I don't think that any of the recent terrorist acts (Manchester, London, Paris, various things in this country) were done by immigrants from those countries. Maybe their distant ancestors were from those countries, but the perpetrators themselves were not. The travel ban gets good PR, but it isn't likely to get good results. Something needs to be banned/stopped, but it isn't immigration from those countries. SamHB (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
I will eventually get to adding material on this. We need to tell the full story -- Trump proposed a complete travel ban on Muslims; He was told that would be unconstitutional and would cause world-wide backlash. He went ahead with a very broad ban, which was struck down by the courts. He rewrote it, and the courts suspended the second EO citing his prior statements. His lawyers then denied to the court that it was a "travel ban" and in response Trump tweeted that it was a "travel ban." We can work all of this into the article after I research the sources. Thanks, JDano (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
- But this ban was not a ban on Muslims. It only included six (seven, at first) nations. The largest Muslim nation (Indonesia) was excluded. The seven nations were all (and only them) were listed as "countries of concern" under the Obama Administration. And why did you remove the Breitbart ref? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
- Yes. This is exactly my concern. There is a progression from the first proposal for "a complete and total" ban on all Muslims to what we have now - a very short term restriction on people from just six countries who do not have any ties to family or institutions in the United States. If that standard had been used in January, a lot few lives would have been disrupted and there would not have been such world-wide reaction. From the end of January until June 26, there was no ban in effect on anyone, so one could argue that whatever terrorist who wanted to enter the US have already done so, and that whatever needed vetting changes the Trump Administration wanted to make would have been implemented by now. Thanks, JDano (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
- There is controversy over whether the very limited six-nation ban is a "Muslim ban". And since Conservapedia's claim to fame is that we include opposing views, especially when Wikipedia does not, I'd like to see some respect for the fact that the different positions exist. Whether they are justified may be harder to pin down, but we can start by simply saying what those positions are. --Ed Poor Talk 10:30, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
Trump as negotiator
What might get lost in the shuffle is that Trump has mastered the art of the deal; he wrote the book on it. Often the best way to get a good deal (a fair one that both sides can live with) is to start off asking for much more than you hope for. Couldn't it be that Trump's two ideas for dealing with immigration problems (wall and ban) are opening gambits?
Seeing Trump as a negotiator would also explain why he has repeatedly criticized a political opponent (or foreign leader), only to turn around and praise that same person effusively. Can anyone say "carrot and stick"? --Ed Poor Talk 10:52, 29 June 2017 (EDT)