I see people quote this a lot in relation to things lately and while I agree it’s a powerful statement on the Nazi era and some of its parallel situations, I think it has a fundamental flaw.
I would have thought that if “there’s no-one left to speak for you” then either A) you’re part of the country’s majority and therefore it’s likely they won’t come for you or B) If it’s pretty obvious “they” are coming for people and you think you might be a target, perhaps leaving might be an expedient course of action.
[QUOTE=TimeWinder]
Post #2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 15, and 16. Plus common sense, and that all the counter-arguments boil down to “well, he didn’t manage to ban ALL the Muslims, so he’s really not banning any of them.”
[/QUOTE]
Read them and responded as well. And he didn’t ban Muslims from the largest Muslim majority countries in the region, let alone world wide. It’s a ‘ban’ that is, as I noted, affected a few hundred or maybe a few thousand from a select group of countries that were ALREADY being restricted…out of literally millions. Not saying it’s right or fair or that it’s not a travesty…it is and Trump is hurting the US as well as those people by doing this stupid shit.
Good enough…have a nice day.
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.
Again, horseshit. But probably best you are out if you are seeing me as supporting Trump either with my OP or with anything I’ve posted. You should get that jerking knee looked at…
How is it possible to say that Trump didn’t “pick the list” when he’s the guy who signed the executive order? Do you imagine he was forced to pick the particular list he did? That somehow Obama snuck in and changed Trump’s list?
So the ban on interracial marriage in Mississippi wasn’t against black people because it didn’t cover all the black people in the US? Or Rosa Parks wasn’t discriminated against that day because she was black because some other black person might have been allowed to sit in the front of the bus somewhere else or at some other time by some other busdriver? I’m not sure “well, we only discriminated against certain kinds of blacks” or “yeah, we didn’t hire that guy because he was Catholic, but we hired another Catholic from another state” would be much consideration.
You’re right. If we want to be precise, I meant that Trump did not pick which countries were included in the list. Congress and Jeh Johnson did that. I don’t think that a disputable proposition.
But, what other list would you propose? There’s an ICE “specially designated countries” list that’s much longer (talk about a Muslim ban). That might have made sense. But it’s hard to say that a shorter list of countries that have been designated (as part of the immigration laws) as countries where “the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States”; where"a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence" or “whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists” is a list that Trump created to corruptly advance his business interests.
(I tend to agree that it’s a pretty ineffective list if the idea is to actually identify countries whose citizens have committed terrorists attacks in the United States, but that’s not my point).
I’m not seeing how the analogy holds. We are banning (supposedly for 90 days but we shall see) pretty much everyone, regardless of race or religion, from a select few nations that were already on a watch list. We allow (currently…we shall see how long THAT holds) people from every race and religion pretty much from every other nation. So…I suppose to make your analogy work, we would have been ok with interracial marriage from Georgia but not from Mississippi, regardless of the race of the two being married, as long as they were from Georgia instead of Mississippi. And Rosa Parks could ride in the front of the bus from North Carolina but not from Kentucky.
Or something. Instead of convoluted analogies, just talk about the actual situation that’s happening. Right now it seems that Muslims are being targeted simply because those countries on the watch list are all Muslim-majority countries. I have no doubt that this is by design, nor any doubts that Trump is doing it to slam Muslims AND throw red meat to his base. But the fact that Muslims from every other country not on the watch list aren’t having the same issues (so far) seems to me to say it’s not a ‘Muslim ban’…it’s a pretty clever way to distract the public and to use Obama’s own list to do so.
If he tries to extend this to all Muslims, that would be a different story…and, as I said, I believe un-Constitutional. Hell, I’m not sure if what he’s doing by targeting the countries he is, especially for folks with green cards is legal OR Constitutional, and I’m pretty sure it WILL be challenged in the courts. Many times.
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.
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.
Also because Trump said he was going to target Muslims.
I really don’t understand the ambiguity here, this is like the NC voter ID laws that were struck down because the dumbasses made the mistake of declaring that they were going to target minorities but make it look like they weren’t. Yes, Trump has left himself a lot of wiggle room by not targeting religion specifically, and not targeting all majority-Muslim countries, but that doesn’t matter because he already told everyone his intent.
…I’m quoting this again for XT because he appears to have missed it the first time.
Donald Trump came to Giuliani and asked him how to ban Muslims legally. Giuliani (quite gleefully) told him how to do it. And Trump did it.
It really is that simple. The intent of the ban (according to Giuliani) was to ban Muslims. So regardless of how the executive order ended up being written: people are calling it out for what it actually is.
I think he’s saying that it’s not a case of Trump doing something hideous and no one is saying anything (“first they came for the … and I said nothing”), it’s that Trump is doing something hideous on one hand to wear us down so he can do something worse on the other.
Trump & Co do seem to suggest outrageous things and then pull back to an extent when there is outcry – so that slightly less hideous starts to seem not so bad…and then maybe even relatively reasonable. :eek:
Your “A” point is wrong. And it ignores history, The point was that there is really no telling where the hate of an authoritarian or dictator will go next. It is always divide and conquer and making as many scapegoats as possible for the supporters of the regime. Martin Niemöller was BTW very conservative and an early supporter of Hitler, but too late he noted how wrong he was when Hitler began to attack the churches. It has to be noted here: Hitler eventually did persecute the churches that opposed to him because by then his supporters were already indoctrinated in the Nazi way. And still more numerous.
As for “B”, it should be clear that people like Niemöller expected that the new regime was going to give him what he wanted just as many like him expected. Workers, Jews and others be dammed.
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.
“… we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills…”
Fundamentally flawed. They had this huge choice of where to fight, so they wouldn’t choose to fight on the beach! Sheesh!
That’s simply not true. Trump clearly campaigned on stopping the influx of Muslims into the country. Giuliani specifically stated he was tasked to try and find a way to make a Muslim ban legal. Trump specifically stated he wanted to help Christians. And every country on the list is a majority Muslim population. It’s akin to saying "we’re not discriminating against black people, just people who happen to live certain neighborhoods that are 90% black.
Which doesn’t change the fact that the legislation banning interracial marriage or stopping Rosa Parks were because those people were black. The fact that not all blacks were effected doesn’t change that fact.
It’s not a total Muslim band. Which, once again, doesn’t mean it doesn’t discriminate against certain Muslims.
He’s doing what Giuliani said. He wants to ban Muslims (except not the ones from countries in which he does business, of course), and is trying to find a way to make it legal.
I mean, what more is there to say? Trump called for a Muslim ban during the campaign to get the rubes all excited, and then the rubes, bigots, and white supremacists got all excited and voted for him. And now he’s banned Muslims. This is not complicated. And he did it by asking Rudy Guliani how he could ban Muslims legally without getting on the wrong side of religious discrimination, and Rudy told him, and that’s what he did. And when it was all done, Trump finished things off – because Trump can never resist the inevitable histrionic bravado – by declaring “we don’t want them here”.