I'll repeat: It can't be a "Muslim" ban since only a small fraction of Muslims reside in the affected countries. The vast majority of Muslims (+90%) live in countries that are unaffected.
It's not a "ban" either. Merely, some countries are having more stringent vetting applied.
I've not previously heard what Giuliani said. This would be the first. In any case, what he said, assuming he did, is irrelevant because we have the facts. You can't ban "Muslims" unless you include a bunch of other countries. +90% of Muslims aren't even subject to the stricter requirements.
You people have gone around the bend.
Fern
😀 I see, we are about to get stuck in your "I will not watch videos!" honor system or whatever you call it, and so of course you refuse to address the topic. This is very much a muslim ban in the sense that Trump is cited as having requested a "legal way to essentially effect a ban on muslims."
We are talking about the reques,t and the goal. You may call this a "terrorism ban" as the admin wants to call it. But, like you, let's look at the
evidence in the field of what this order does do. It bans refugees from no country that sent terroriststo our country. It bans immigrants, none of which have any statistical reality of attacking us, ever. IT specifically opens travel between the very countries that have actually attacked us.
So, based on your argument, this order isn't even what the admin claims it is. SO, here are, Fern:
--It does not, by evidence, act within the actual terms that it addresses.
--it is intended, by claims of the one ordered to draft it through request of Trump, seek an indirect ban of muslims
specifically, through legal scripting.
These are the facts we have and the argument that you make--assuming that you accept the new evidence.
