# 49% vs. 41% in favour of Muslim ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2017, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708 "2017-01-31T22:54:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/241 "2017-02-03T17:00:49Z")
> [@Vicsage](#): > > I’ve learned not to believe polls anymore. Especially ones that can never be confirmed by an actual vote. If a poll says people agree with Trump’s moves it means nothing to me. If it says they disagree, also nothing. Why should you even care? Are people such sheep that they change their opinion based on some poll? If you argue that the will of the people should be followed, that’s why we have elections. Nothing in the Constitution says our Representatives should vote based upon polling. This may shock some people but pollsters can have biases also and some may even think running numbers certain ways is good for the country, so its OK. This idea about quoting polls like they’re facts carved in stone to make arguments is really getting out of hand. Meh, while it is true one should not take them as gospel history does show that the serious ones do reveal the overall trends, the ones that ignore all polls are many times the ones that favor authoritarians or are the authoritarians. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/242 "2017-02-03T17:12:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You really think so? I’d be surprised if it had much of an effect at all, economically. It’s not like any of the “banned” countries is a major trading partner, or a significant economic power. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s not just those folks, though – it’s anyone in almost any country with dual citizenship for any of those countries – that’s probably millions of Europeans, Oceanians, and (obviously) Middle Easterners and Africans who will not consider the US as a vacation spot any time soon. Even a few percentage points lost in tourism dollars is a lot of money. Economical impacts do come as a result of disrupting scientific efforts, and some costs are a bit incalculable, but clearly negative: > **[Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Already Harming American Science](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/trumps-immigration-ban-is-already-harming-americas-scientistsand-its-science/514859/)** > > Iranian scientists have been a major boon to everything from Mars exploration to Ebola-fighting to advanced mathematics.  > [@](#): > > Asgari is only one of hundreds of scientists who have been affected by Trump’s ban, which also applies to green-card holders who have permanent residence in the U.S., but have gone overseas for professional or personal reasons. That includes Ali Abdi, an Iranian Ph.D. student studying anthropology at Yale University. A few hours after taking part in the Women’s March in Washington, D.C., he left the U.S. to do ethnographic research in Afghanistan. He’s now stuck in Dubai, awaiting a visa from the Afghan consulate. If that falls through, he doubts he can return to the U.S. despite having a green card, and he rules out a return to Iran because of his record of civil-rights activism. “Let see how things unfold in the U.S.,” he says. “I am sure people around the globe will resist.” > > Some already have. On Friday afternoon, thousands of academics, including a dozen Nobel laureates, signed a petition protesting Trump’s order. On Saturday, thousands of protesters filled airports in half-a-dozen major U.S. cities. On a Twitter account called @FreeSciNet, Jen Golbeck from the University of Maryland started building a network to support scientists who were blocked from re-entry, helping them with parked cars, untended pets, and more. The ACLU also sprang into action. In response to their petition, federal judge Ann Donnelly issued a nationwide stay, decreeing that anyone who had already arrived at U.S. airports with valid visas would be allowed to remain; three other judges followed suit. But these measures are temporary. They don’t undo the full executive order, which the Department of Homeland Security has said it will “continue to enforce.” And they don’t apply to future arrivals. > > “Many talented friends of mine can’t come back to finish their degrees, simply because they went back to their hometowns to visit their parents,” says Saeed Mehraban, an Iranian Ph.D. student who is working on quantum computing at MIT, and is currently in Austin visiting his advisor. “I’m just taking a domestic flight from Texas to Boston, and I’m still scared they may do me harm.” > > “Professional and personal lives are being destroyed,” says Josh Plotkin from the University of Pennsylvania. One of his postdoctoral fellows—an Iranian, and a legal permanent resident of the U.S.—was traveling abroad when Trump’s order was signed. “They are now separated from their spouse, and likely unable to attend faculty job interviews that are scheduled in the coming weeks. This postdoc was working on new ways to treat HIV/AIDS.” ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/243 "2017-02-03T17:27:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You really think so? I’d be surprised if it had much of an effect at all, economically. It’s not like any of the “banned” countries is a major trading partner, or a significant economic power. The feds have already revoked a [hundred thousand visas](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/government-reveals-over-100000-visas-revoked-due-to-travel-ban/2017/02/03/7d529eec-ea2c-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.af139b3f186f). That’s a tad bit higher than the few hundred or a thousand you posited. Add to that the people who aren’t going to bother to apply, and the people who still have their visas and are now afraid to try to use them–how many do you think they number? Then you have all of the ones who would face no barriers to entry themselves, but are so disgusted that they lose interest and pick a different destination, or whose business depended upon somebody else who can’t or won’t come to the U.S. Further, you have not addressed a concern I mentioned earlier: this isn’t “just” a 90- or 120-day cooling off period. For some categories, such as Syrian refugees, this is an INDEFINITE suspension. The actual text of the order doesn’t say anything about finding better ways to vet Syrian refugees; the admission of every refugee from Syria is suspended until such time as Mr. Trump decides that allowing any refugees from Syria is in the national interest. That’s not “any incompletely vetted refugees”; that’s “any refugees” period. The entire group is labeled as not worthy of being examined individually, because he doesn’t want any of them. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/244 "2017-02-03T18:38:57Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > [No](http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011). Vox’s standard for ‘it wasn’t a ban when Obama did it’ seems to be rather interesting: > [@](#): > > “While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and **there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here** ,” Jon Finer, an Obama administration official who worked on national security, writes at Foreign Policy. By that same standard, I’m pretty sure Trump hasn’t imposed a “ban” either. A number of waivers were granted previously. In February and March, if he admits at least on Iraqi under a waiver, it wasn’t a ban either. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/245 "2017-02-03T18:45:45Z")
Hmm…revoking a hundred thousand green cards and negotiating only with those who have the resources to actually sue successfully in court? Oh no, that’s not a ‘ban.’ So much for its only affecting a small number of people. Waiting for the next ‘alternative fact’ from the Trump administration. Like Bugs Bunny I mean Kellyanne Conway talking about the Bowling Green Massacree. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/246 "2017-02-03T18:58:07Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > The feds have already revoked a [hundred thousand visas](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/government-reveals-over-100000-visas-revoked-due-to-travel-ban/2017/02/03/7d529eec-ea2c-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.af139b3f186f). Thanks for sharing this. I wish the article were more descriptive on the context around the number, but it’s still a tidbit of information. > [@slash2k](#): > > Further, you have not addressed a concern I mentioned earlier: this isn’t “just” a 90- or 120-day cooling off period. For some categories, such as Syrian refugees, this is an INDEFINITE suspension. The actual text of the order doesn’t say anything about finding better ways to vet Syrian refugees; the admission of every refugee from Syria is suspended until such time as Mr. Trump decides that allowing any refugees from Syria is in the national interest. That’s not “any incompletely vetted refugees”; that’s “any refugees” period. The entire group is labeled as not worthy of being examined individually, because he doesn’t want any of them. The [actual text of the order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states) says: > [@](#): > > Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall **suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period**, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to **determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures**. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States. > > ``` > (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization. > > (c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry **until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest**. > > ``` I think a fair reading of the order is that they anticipate having the refugee program back up and running in 120 days and if the changes they’ve made are enough to assuage the Donald’s concern, then Syrian refugees will be admitted going forward. You said " The actual text of the order doesn’t say anything about finding better ways to vet Syrian refugees" but I think it does: “determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States” would seem to encompass Syrian refugees as well as others. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/247 "2017-02-03T19:04:17Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Hmm…revoking a hundred thousand green cards … (post shortened) The article actually said 100,000 _visas_ and the lawyer that gave that number also said “all people with green cards who came through the airport have been let into the United States”. [This](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/fiance-marriage-visa-book/chapter1-1.html) may help you with the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/248 "2017-02-03T21:32:59Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think a fair reading of the order is that they anticipate having the refugee program back up and running in 120 days and if the changes they’ve made are enough to assuage the Donald’s concern, then Syrian refugees will be admitted going forward. You said " The actual text of the order doesn’t say anything about finding better ways to vet Syrian refugees" but I think it does: “determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States” would seem to encompass Syrian refugees as well as others. You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the reason for the order. I don’t think this has anything to do with concerns about vetting; this has to do with “Muslims are scary.” As long as the refugees are non-Christian, I do not expect that ANY steps could or will assuage the Donald’s concerns, not in 120 days and not in 120 years. Look at the people around him like Guiliani and Bannon, who are spouting off about Muslim bans and the West’s war against Islam. Bannon in particular seems to the be the architect of this order, and Bannon has made it very plain that he sees the Judeo-Christian West pitted against Islam itself, not against poorly vetted refugees who happen to be Islamic. He has compared the current situation to Charles Martel at Tours, stopping an invasion. This is the man who has the president’s ear–what POSSIBLE procedures do you think could be implemented that would change Bannon’s mind? Look at clause (c) of section (5), as you quoted it: “the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States.” It’s not written as “the entry of nationals without being thoroughly screened,” or any language to that effect–it’s all of them. Their entry is detrimental, full stop. What’s going to change that situation in 120 days? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/249 "2017-02-03T21:35:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Vox’s standard for ‘it wasn’t a ban when Obama did it’ seems to be rather interesting: > > By that same standard, I’m pretty sure Trump hasn’t imposed a “ban” either. A number of waivers were granted previously. In February and March, if he admits at least on Iraqi under a waiver, it wasn’t a ban either. Don’t forget that it was a targeted delay of a specific program which demonstrated a verfiable deficiency. Which is absolutely unlike the ban of everyone from 7 countries for at least 4 months and the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, all for nothing that the administration cares to share. A typical bisa comes with a fee of $100. 100,000 people passed their checks, got their visas, lost their money and the administration’s response is vague and dismissive. Real American, make me want to turn on the country music, sit on the back of my pickup and drink a beer. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/250 "2017-02-03T22:37:54Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Hmm…revoking a hundred thousand green cards and negotiating only with those who have the resources to actually sue successfully in court? Oh no, that’s not a ‘ban.’ > > So much for its only affecting a small number of people. Waiting for the next ‘alternative fact’ from the Trump administration. Like Bugs Bunny I mean Kellyanne Conway talking about the Bowling Green Massacree. (underline added) It looks like you’ve made a mistake. Conway has already corrected her misstatement. Now it’s your turn. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/251 "2017-02-03T23:44:00Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (underline added) > > It looks like you’ve made a mistake. Conway has already corrected her misstatement. Now it’s your turn. Or not. Nah, Ms “alternate facts” Conway still has a lot to correct before her case in favor of the Muslim ban holds any water. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/politics/bowling-green-massacre-kellyanne-conway.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/politics/bowling-green-massacre-kellyanne-conway.html) > [@](#): > > The Clarification > > On Friday morning, Ms. Conway admitted she had put out wrong information. “Honest mistakes abound,” she wrote on Twitter — and pointed to missteps the news media had made in covering the Trump administration. > > As for her overshadowed assertion that President Obama had instituted a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after the Bowling Green arrests, that’s not quite true either: While the Obama administration slowed the visa process, some Iraqi refugees were admitted to the United States in every month of 2011. > > Ms. Conway did clarify that, yes, she had been referring to the case of Mr. Hammadi and Mr. Alwan. > > Yet, by pointing to an ABC News article from November 2013, she undermined her claim that the story “didn’t get covered.” > > It did. BTW nothing that **Johnny Ace** said needs correction, it is still the truth that Ms Conway did get it wrong about the bowling massacre, her accepting that is only taking away **one** item from several misleading others used to justify a very stupid move by the President. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/252 "2017-02-04T01:54:10Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > He has compared the current situation to Charles Martel at Tours, stopping an invasion. I hadn’t heard this before but I’m interested. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/253 "2017-02-04T02:42:55Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (underline added) > > It looks like you’ve made a mistake. Conway has already corrected her misstatement. Now it’s your turn. Or not. That would be the ‘or not’ part. She said she screwed up. No shit…really? She fabricated a nonexistent event to try to justify Trump’s travel ban by saying “Oh, the Obama administration did it too.” Which, of course, they didn’t, as has already been dealt with. (Actually, after the non-apology apology she then continued about how we should all forgive her because she wasn’t releasing the name of some liberal who tweeted from the wrong account or something. Whose name she didn’t release, of course. Wow, what a paragon of truth and virtue!) Give me a break. The spelling was absolutely intentional, btw. That’s how Bugs Bunny said it, and it was satire. ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/254 "2017-02-04T02:45:13Z")
This could all be fixed with a simple change of wording. A complete and absolute denial of entry by any non documented US citizen, in effect until later review. Now no one is singled out ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/255 "2017-02-04T02:49:18Z")
> [@Weisshund](#): > > This could all be fixed with a simple change of wording. > > A complete and absolute denial of entry by any non documented US citizen, in effect until later review. > > Now no one is singled out What could all be fixed? The world’s negative reaction to it? The American public’s? Republicans as well as Democrats? How about the scrambling by Trump’s mouthpieces to come up with a more bullshit justification than the last? Oh, we said it’s a ban, but no it’s really not a ban. Oh, we said it’s directed at Muslims, but no it’s not really directed at Muslims. Oh, we said it was temporary, but it’s really not temporary. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/256 "2017-02-04T03:40:43Z")
Just saw an article that said the State Department said it was “fewer than 60,000 visas”. Not that it much matters, but if we’re going to be throwing around numbers we might as well try to use the correct one. > **[State Dept: Fewer than 60,000 visas canceled by Trump order](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-dept-fewer-than-60000-visas-canceled-by-trump-order)** > > Up to 60,000 foreigners from seven majority-Muslim countries had their visas canceled after President Donald Trump's executive order blocked them from traveling to the U.S., the State Department said Friday. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/257 "2017-02-04T06:40:52Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > It is absolute lunacy to take the position that we should just throw open our doors willy-nilly to any and every Muslim who seeks to enter the country because to do otherwise is racism or religious discrimination. Zero people have suggested that, but it is a convenient position to argue against so I don’t blame you for inventing it. Perhaps you’re under the impression that refugees aren’t screened? Maybe you’re under the impression that refugees from countries on the ban list have actually killed people in America, and you’re willing to trade your soul to stop it? Good news, friend! You can keep your soul, because there is an effective screening process for refugees and immigrants coming from Muslim countries. Or at least there _was_, back before we starting turning away the people who are fleeing from a murder cult. Fuck them, though. America first! ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/258 "2017-02-04T07:42:39Z")
fwiw, the Somali refugees currently held at the last staging post in Kenya before embarkation to their new lives have been through an seven-year vetting process. Some of the children weren’t born. > [@](#): > > Ganey has lived in Dadaab since civil war broke out in Somalia in 1991, and applied for a place in the US refugee resettlement programme seven years ago. After a process of rigorous screening by UN and US officials, his clearance for immigration came through last October Also, stuff like this: > [@](#): > > Muhumad Yusuf Dhaqane, 37, had come with his wife and three children from Dadaab after nearly five years, and dozens of interviews with UN and US officials. He had received tickets from the International Organisation for Migrations (IOM) for a flight on Saturday to Texas via Amsterdam. > > “I was always dreaming to be American because during our cultural orientation class, we heard that in America that all people are the same with equal rights whether you are Muslim, Christian or Jew or others. I heard that there is neither discrimination nor racism – if you are black or white you have equal rights in America,” Dhaqane said. > > “How can I go back to that refugee camp? I gave out my mattress, my sheets and all my belongings to other people there. Even I sold my small shelter which was sticks and iron sheets so where will I live? Donald Trump killed me for good. He killed my dream and my future” > **[Refugees in Kenya hit by US travel ban after years of waiting for asylum](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/30/refugees-in-kenya-may-face-return-to-somalia-after-us-travel-ban)** > > Somalis who waited up to 10 years to pass rigorous screening shocked by abrupt change in their prospects ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/259 "2017-02-04T10:52:50Z")
The Muslim ban is temporarily blocked and travelers from the 7 countries may resume their journies to the US! It looks like the judge who blocked it took issue with the fact no reason was offered for the ban from these countries: from[Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-travel-ban-nationwide/2017/02/04/5e4d5160-eaa7-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.c2d06834db3d): > [@](#): > > When the judge questioned the federal government’s lawyer, Michelle Bennett, he repeatedly questioned the rationale behind the order. > > Robart, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, asked if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties listed in Trump’s order since 9/11. Bennett said she didn’t know. > > “The answer is none,” Robart said. “You’re here arguing we have to protect from these individuals from these countries, and there’s no support for that.” I am glad somebody with the power to block this executive order understands American Values. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2017, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708/260 "2017-02-04T11:01:08Z")
Judges should rule on values. They should rule on laws. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/49-vs-41-in-favour-of-muslim-ban/778708.md?page=14)