# Help me understand...why are people calling it a 'Muslim ban'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2017, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701 "2017-01-31T21:40:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/41 "2017-02-01T00:53:23Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Horseshit. But, I think my own concern is more realistic and more frightening. I think Trump is going to make a major move on illegal immigrants living in the US, and am scared what the ramifications of that will be if he starts some sort of a mass deportation back to their countries of origin. While that might include a few thousand Muslims it WILL include millions of Mexicans and others from central and south America. THAT will be a big deal. And I think by getting folks so focused on this he will be able to pull it off. I think your reasoning is sound there, but if you want to resist and get ahead of that, letting the Muslim ban slide is really not a good way to start. The question has already been answered upthread, but consider that all the specified countries are majority Muslim. Then consider that Trump has already floated the idea of a Christian exemption. If that’s true, then by definition Muslims are overwhelmingly affected. It may not be a complete Muslim ban, but it is designed as a Muslim ban. As to the game theoretic part of your post, consider Trump’s courses of action: 1. Enact an actual explicit Muslim ban. Outcome: Likely fatal overreach. 2. Enact a deniable Muslim ban. Result: The people either buy it, paving the way for more overreach, or they reject it and get distracted. 3. Don’t enact any kind of Muslim ban. Result: Loss of credibility among his base. Being that door #2 is obviously the best-case, lowest risk political scenario for Team Trump, it’s inconceivable that he would do otherwise. That doesn’t mean your scenario is wrong - you are probably right. But it is also a thinly veiled Muslim ban crafted to enable the kind of scenario you’re talking about. ---
**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 1, 2017, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/42 "2017-02-01T01:12:15Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I think your reasoning is sound there, but if you want to resist and get ahead of that, letting the Muslim ban slide is really not a good way to start. > > The question has already been answered upthread, but consider that all the specified countries are majority Muslim. Then consider that Trump has already floated the idea of a Christian exemption. If that’s true, then by definition Muslims are overwhelmingly affected. It may not be a complete Muslim ban, but it is designed as a Muslim ban. > > As to the game theoretic part of your post, consider Trump’s courses of action: > > 1. Enact an actual explicit Muslim ban. Outcome: Likely fatal overreach. > 2. Enact a deniable Muslim ban. Result: The people either buy it, paving the way for more overreach, or they reject it and get distracted. > 3. Don’t enact any kind of Muslim ban. Result: Loss of credibility among his base. > > Being that door #2 is obviously the best-case, lowest risk political scenario for Team Trump, it’s inconceivable that he would do otherwise. That doesn’t mean your scenario is wrong - you are probably right. But it is also a thinly veiled Muslim ban crafted to enable the kind of scenario you’re talking about. And if the ban does fail legally, he can complain to his reality-challenged base that it’s all part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to sabotage him, just like his statement on firing the Acting Attorney General who couldn’t possibly have been standing on her principles as a longtime legal expert and employee of the DOJ but instead ‘betrayed’ it and was working hand-in-hand with Democratic Senators slowing the approval of Sessions. ---
**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 1, 2017, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/43 "2017-02-01T01:21:07Z")
It is and it isn’t. Is: This is as close as Trump could get (at this point) to what he wanted to do: Ban foreign Muslims from entering the US. Isn’t: It will stand up in court against an establishment challenge. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/44 "2017-02-01T01:35:17Z")
Why all this focus on Muslim terrorists? Terrorists come from more than one religious background. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/45 "2017-02-01T01:36:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So that is just coincidence? Trump had nothing to do with the choices? Perhaps not but then those who chose the list did so knowing their boss and what would make him happy and would would make him upset. I can answer your list of questions, at least. 1. Trump had nothing to do with the selection of the countries included under 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). 2. That list was assembled by the 2015 Congress and the Obama DHS in early 2016. 3. I have no reason to believe that either the 2015 Congress or Secretary Johnson either believed that Trump would become president or wanted to make him happy. Do you? > [@Hamlet](#): > > Still not following you. It was Trump’s executive order. He picked which countries were to be on the list, and which weren’t. You can’t claim he didn’t have any choice, or that the list was someone elses. It’s his list. > > Seeing as how I disagree with the policy, I woudn’t have proposed any list. I don’t understand your point. The list of countries under 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) is not Trump’s list. He didn’t pick the countries. He didn’t appoint the people who picked the countries. So, we have an existing list of countries deemed to post a threat to the United States for immigration purposes. Leave aside whether that’s a good list for the moment. And leave aside whether you agree with the policy. The argument is that the use of the list under Section 1187(a)(12) is a sham to cover for the corrupt advancement of Trump’s business purposes. I have trouble believing that argument. We’ve already established that Trump did not create the list. So the next question is: why did he pick _this_ list? On the surface, it seems like a logical list to apply to immigration issues (it’s in the immigration laws after all). But if there was a different (better) list that was overlooked; and if there was some reason to believe that _that_ list was less favorable to Trump’s business enterprises; then I might be convinced. Do you know of such a list? (None of this has to do with whether or not the application of the Section 1187(a)(12) list makes sense here. There seems to be some credible evidence that foreign nationals that visit those countries are more likely to be terrorists. But I’m not aware of evidence that nationals of those countries are more likely to be terrorists.). ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/46 "2017-02-01T01:38:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So countries that HAVE exported terrorism to the US are not on that list but this is a list designed to protect us from terrorists so that makes sense how? Then you see Trump has business with the obvious countries that should be on the list but aren’t. As much as this order was IMO horrible policy, the list makes a lot of sense if you are trying to protect the US from the most significant terror threat. Every country on the list is either a state sponsor of terror (based on the list left by Obama’s State Dept.),has a strong IS/IS affiliate or both. Failing or failed states that can’t help us in routine vetting is a pretty common shared characteristic as well. IS is the major transnational terror threat at the moment. They have a strong and sophisticated information operations capability to recruit, encourage and inspire terror attacks. They’ve been successful at doing just [that](http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/world/mapping-isis-attacks-around-the-world/): > [@](#): > > Since declaring its caliphate in June 2014, the self-proclaimed Islamic State has conducted or inspired more than 140 terrorist attacks in 29 countries [ETA - including the US] other than Iraq and Syria, where its carnage has taken a much deadlier toll. Those attacks have killed at least 2,043 people and injured thousands more. It doesn’t take a more convoluted theory that this must just be about business interests to explain the list. It is where the dominant terror threat to the US and our allies is today. It’s not 2001 anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/47 "2017-02-01T01:44:05Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I don’t understand your point. The list of countries under 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) is not Trump’s list. He didn’t pick the countries. He didn’t appoint the people who picked the countries. Are you being deliberately obtuse? He (or more precisely his lackeys) wrote the executive orders. He could have picked any countries he wanted to put on the list or not on the list. He could have included Saudi Arabia, deleted Libya, or added Loompaland. It’s his executive order. He was not bound by any list or anything else, except to the extent he wanted to try and pretend what he was doing was what Obama did. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/48 "2017-02-01T01:50:35Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > He could have included Saudi Arabia, deleted Libya, or added Loompaland. Go after his own people? Do you think he’s a monster or something? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/49 "2017-02-01T01:55:17Z")
I think the easiest way this is going to fall is due to the religious test, true he didn’t select the countries but the criteria for selecting was stated to help “Christians” and of the countries listed this is the only party that really matches. > [@](#): > > 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. As this is attached to only this PO and because I think that this will bump the scrutiny level up this will be very hard for any court to affirm. While I think it does violate the establishment clause this will be an easier kill. As they will need to show a compelling government interest and the only really permanent part is the refuge ban this will be hard to show. In the 40 years from 1975-2015 there were only 3 deaths in terrorist attacks from people on immigration visas. This puts the personal chance of being killed in a terrorist attack from a refugee at 1 in 3,640,000,000. As in our country all immigrants tend to be more law abiding than the general population Trump will have a tough time. Also in the lower courts he may have problems because he fired the AG, while this is not a matter of law I do wonder if some of the judges will view this as an attempt to remove power from their branch. ---
**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 1, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/50 "2017-02-01T01:55:23Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Are you being deliberately obtuse? He (or more precisely his lackeys) wrote the executive orders. He could have picked any countries he wanted to put on the list or not on the list. He could have included Saudi Arabia, deleted Libya, or added Loompaland. It’s his executive order. He was not bound by any list or anything else, except to the extent he wanted to try and pretend what he was doing was what Obama did. Do you think a court would interpret this as a “Muslim Ban”? You and I know it is (or it’s as close as Trump thought he could get to one right now), but wouldn’t a court say the president has broad authority in this area and can designate countries for such action at his discretion? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/51 "2017-02-01T02:11:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you think a court would interpret this as a “Muslim Ban”? What court? This Supreme Court? Likely not. Courts are very reluctant to find illegal discrimination, even if a person says they’re going to discriminate on the basis of religion and the act has the impact of discriminating on the basis of religion. Guiliani’s statement is pretty damn good evidence, but that’s not really going to persuade someone like Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Roberts. > [@John Mace](#): > > You and I know it is (or it’s as close as Trump thought he could get to one right now), but wouldn’t a court say the president has broad authority in this area and can designate countries for such action at his discretion? I don’t think it’s necessarily a discretion thing, it’s more of a “no standing” (non US citizens in foreign countries don’t necessarily have rights under the Constitution, so they’re screwed) and “textualism” (it doesn’t come out and SAY that it only applies to Muslims, so it’s all good). I think the better argument (off the top of my head, of course, I haven’t done much research at all) is that it violates the federal prohibition Congress enacted in 1965 outlawing discrimination on the basis of national origin. But that may fall when the Republican Congress toes the party line. I don’t have much hope for the Establishment Clause argument either, but who knows. ---
**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 1, 2017, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/52 "2017-02-01T02:21:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you think a court would interpret this as a “Muslim Ban”? > > You and I know it is (or it’s as close as Trump thought he could get to one right now), but wouldn’t a court say the president has broad authority in this area and can designate countries for such action at his discretion? It might, I have some doubts about that because I do think that the ACLU or the city and states lawyers will show the video of Trump and then the “spill the beans” Gulliani one in court and that is a thing that exists: courts indeed do take a look at evidence pointing at the original intent of the ones proposing a new law or regulation. > **['Racially Discriminatory Intent' And Voter ID Laws](https://www.npr.org/2016/07/31/488151559/racially-discriminatory-intent-and-voter-id-laws)** > > A federal appeals court struck down North Carolina's voter ID law. Law professor Rick Hasen explains why and what impact it will have. > [@](#): > > Now it’s time for our regular feature, Words You’ll Hear. That’s where we try to understand what’s happening in the news by parsing some of the words associated with those stories. This week, the words are racially discriminatory intent. On Friday, a federal appeals court struck down the core of a North Carolina law that required voters to show photo ID, eliminated opportunities to vote early and to register to vote on Election Day, among other things. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the measure’s provisions were in fact intended to target African-American voters. > [@](#): > > HASEN: Well, I certainly think that it’s true that Democrats and Republicans have the same view that if you make it easier to register and vote, that’s going to help poor and minority voters, who tend to vote for Democrats. But I tend to look at these cases differently and take it from the point of view of the voter and ask the question, does the state have a good reason to burden voters, to make it harder to register and vote? > > And if the state has a good reason for that, then maybe its law is OK. But if the state’s reasons are made up or pretextual, then that’s not a reason to make it harder to register and vote. And in this case, the court said that the laws were not really justified by preventing fraud. They didn’t really act to prevent fraud. They seem to be motivated instead to drive down turnout of groups that tend to vote for the minority party. IIRC what took place there is that the ones opposed to the new voter law found too many smoking guns (emails, recordings, testimony) showing that the ones crafting the law had the intention all along to suppress the vote of minorities. I’m not pointing here at voter law BTW, only that IMHO that part about the original “intent”; it is not so easy to sweep under the rug. ---
**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 1, 2017, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/53 "2017-02-01T02:25:40Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > What court? This Supreme Court? Likely not. Courts are very reluctant to find illegal discrimination, even if a person says they’re going to discriminate on the basis of religion and the act has the impact of discriminating on the basis of religion. Guiliani’s statement is pretty damn good evidence, but that’s not really going to persuade someone like Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Roberts. > > I don’t think it’s necessarily a discretion thing, it’s more of a “no standing” (non US citizens in foreign countries don’t necessarily have rights under the Constitution, so they’re screwed) and “textualism” (it doesn’t come out and SAY that it only applies to Muslims, so it’s all good). I think the better argument (off the top of my head, of course, I haven’t done much research at all) is that it violates the federal prohibition Congress enacted in 1965 outlawing discrimination on the basis of national origin. But that may fall when the Republican Congress toes the party line. I don’t have much hope for the Establishment Clause argument either, but who knows. OK, thanks. I was thinking it might go to a federal court, be denied (for whatever reason) and that would be the end of it. I doubt it would reach the SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/54 "2017-02-01T02:28:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, thanks. I was thinking it might go to a federal court, be denied (for whatever reason) and that would be the end of it. I doubt it would reach the SCOTUS. He fired the AG within hours of saying that She wouldn’t fight it in court. It will go to SCOTUS IMHO, the only question is if they accept it. But the AG will appeal as far as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/55 "2017-02-01T02:31:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, thanks. I was thinking it might go to a federal court, be denied (for whatever reason) and that would be the end of it. I doubt it would reach the SCOTUS. I think there are enough jurisdictions involved that there will be multiple federal appellate level court opinions that could need SCOTUS involvement. But I think the bigger problem, which always crops up in executive power over-reach cases, is finding someone with standing. Once the detainees are no longer detainees, once the green card holders are allowed in, once the foreigners who are on US soil are all dealt with, there may not be anyone who will be found to have standing to challenge it. ---
**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 1, 2017, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/56 "2017-02-01T02:51:24Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I think there are enough jurisdictions involved that there will be multiple federal appellate level court opinions that could need SCOTUS involvement. But I think the bigger problem, which always crops up in executive power over-reach cases, is finding someone with standing. Once the detainees are no longer detainees, once the green card holders are allowed in, once the foreigners who are on US soil are all dealt with, there may not be anyone who will be found to have standing to challenge it. I wouldn’t expect it to be that soon. Remember, technically all those illegal aliens he promised to eject from the country fit under the ‘foreigners on US soil’ definition. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/57 "2017-02-01T03:02:48Z")
I don’t think it’ll be hard to find someone with standing. How many grad students are in the US from one of those countries? Googling “Iranian graduate student association” shows ~50 at Michigan alone. Would they not have standing? Can’t go home and visit family. I’ve been getting multiple emails about the impacts to graduate students at my school. ---
**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 1, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/58 "2017-02-01T03:10:53Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I think there are enough jurisdictions involved that there will be multiple federal appellate level court opinions that could need SCOTUS involvement. But I think the bigger problem, which always crops up in executive power over-reach cases, is finding someone with standing. Once the detainees are no longer detainees, once the green card holders are allowed in, once the foreigners who are on US soil are all dealt with, there may not be anyone who will be found to have standing to challenge it. It leaves though the issue of lost wages or other harm to be taken care of. I can see lawsuits and demands that Trump will not care to get into because, as usual, he will not need to pay a dime. Here in Arizona we saw this movie **already**. Trump’s mini-me, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, made a sport of enforcing regulations (laws made by the bigots in the Arizona congress) in the most draconian ways but enough voters did like how he was sticking it to the immigrants, the undocumented and even the citizens or legal residents… Whoops, did I say legal residents? Yep, a good number of legal residents were indeed detained or their rights abused during his reign too. While the people affected were released the ACLU still could point at the harm caused and the judges did agree. It led to eventually finding Arpaio to be a racial profiler and then to be in contempt of court as a bonus. But what really toppled him were the voters that finally learned how damaging he was for all when he **also** decided to make moves to intimidate the very federal judge overseeing his case. It took decades and hundreds of millions (in some estimates) in state money for many in Arizona to learn that lesson. How long for most Americans in battleground states will it take to learn that lesson? (A plurality of Americans already knows) And how much will it cost to the American Taxpayer the reign of Trump? Remember, we are talking federal and world levels, not state level “chump change”. ---
**Author:** ![purplehearingaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@purplehearingaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehearingaid)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/59 "2017-02-01T03:16:36Z")
> **[Donald Trump: ban all Muslims entering US](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/07/donald-trump-ban-all-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting)** > > Republican frontrunner wants ‘total and complete shutdown’ of borders to Muslims after San Bernardino shooting in latest boundary-pushing proposal Does this work for you !!!?? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701/60 "2017-02-01T04:27:28Z")
Microsoft can demonstrate harm and has signed on with the Washington state legal effort. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-why-are-people-calling-it-a-muslim-ban/778701.md?page=4)