The truth is, there is no single rational factor that correlates with the seven banned countries. Many Muslim countries with no Trump properties were not banned, like Afghanistan or Oman. Many countries with no presence of the Trump organization but with violent insurgencies were not banned, like Chad or South Sudan. This view is likewise hard to support with facts. Additionally, countries whose citizens have perpetrated attacks, like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, were not banned.ĮO critics have claimed these countries were selected to avoid Trump’s properties, implicitly rewarding countries for doing business with the Trump Organization. Iran, meanwhile, has no violent insurgency at all.įurthermore, not a single American has died as a result of terrorist attacks committed by any citizen of the seven banned countries in this millennium.* Of course, this doesn’t mean, in the absence of a ban, no attack would occur in the future, but these countries have not posed a unique risk in the past. Several of these even involve similar large-scale jihadist insurgencies similar to those observed in the banned countries. Many unstable or violent places were not included (Chad, Central African Republic, Mali, Egypt, Ukraine, Nigeria, etc). The Obama administration did identify them as places of concern, and most do have active sectarian conflicts and terrorist activity, but, the truth is, they have no common thread. Some EO supporters have claimed the seven banned nations were selected due to a unique terrorist threat.
Within the Middle East, large countries like Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia were not restricted. The vast majority of Muslims and Muslim countries are in Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, or Central Asia. However, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has claimed that President Trump did explicitly say he wanted to ban Muslims. The countries selected were based on a list provided by the Obama administration, and the Obama administration had already imposed stricter visa screening requirements on those countries. Some critics have claimed this EO is a “Muslim ban.” That’s debatable.
So this EO is teeing up for a more permanent ban in the future. Indeed, Section 3(e) of the EO actually orders the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to come up with a list of countries for a more permanent ban. The ban is not permanent, lasting only 90 days, but, as with the refugee ban, can be renewed or extended. The EO does include permission for Customs to give “case-by-case” exceptions, but there do not appear to have been many exceptions yet (I could find only one documented case), and no guidance was given to Customs about what rules to use for making such exceptions. This means no tourists, no students, no immigrants, no refugees, no nothing. The media has focused on the blanket ban on all visas for all people (except diplomats) with citizenship from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen.
We’ll skip the fluff in the first two sections, and start with the meaty bit, Section 3. I will go through all the major provisions of the EO one by one. So, if you have the patience to understand what the EO actually means and the effects it may have, read on. immigration policy, you’ve got to use some critical thinking, a practice all-too-rare when “the narrative” needs to be advanced on TV. If you want sound-bites and one-liners, this article won’t be of much use to you, because it’s an effort to take a serious look and figure out what’s really going on in this EO.
0 kommentar(er)
