Someone needs to post this information at the airports.
m.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/01/29/news-bulletin-the-list-of-muslim-nations-in-trumps-socalled-muslim-ban-are-ones-obama-choose-n2278021
Have you read the
Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act? Even the linked article you cite in your OP notes that the provisions Obama enacted serve as controls that give immigration officials an opportunity to perform some degree of validating before granting short-term U.S. entry to individuals hailing from questionable regions. That's a very different thing from implementing a full ban on entry.
Presenting, as you have, the fact that the countries Trump has singled out for his immigration/travel ban is substantively like saying one's predecessor determined that some red foods are harmful to one's health and then proceeding to ban selected classes of red foods produced in certain localities, but not those from other locales, all the while asserting that the choice of locales quarantined includes some of the places one's predecessor identified as producing red food items and delivering them to the U.S.
Trump's course of action re: the ban will achieve one thing: it allows him to assert that he's followed through on a campaign promise. That the tone, substance and efficacy of the action is odious and of dubious value in minimizing the risk of subsequent terrorist acts. The reasons include, but are not limited to the following:
- Individuals from those countries were not the perpetrators of any material quantity of terrorist acts that have transpired in the U.S.
- The individuals of Middle Eastern and Central Asian descent who have carried out terrorist attack were Americans and the ban will not interdict and impede the actions of similar individuals who would do harm on U.S. shores.
- The U.S.' main international foe as goes terrorism is ISIS, and in multiple instances ISIS has shown us that its approach is to inspire, nurture and enable the nefarious intent of individuals ho have free access within the countries in question. ISIS does not act as expeditionary disperser of would be terrorists. It publishes propaganda and rallying calls and then lets sympathizers make their locality and willingness known, whereupon ISIS finds ways to enable them.
One thing the ban does, however, is set up the specious argument for there being causality between the ban and the incidence of terrorism in the U.S., assuming America experiences a lower rate of terrorist acts on its shores. The argument is specious from the get-go because terrorism has no agreed upon definition or set of characteristics. To that end, any violent acts the Trump Administration cares to deem as non-terrorist will be so classified. The insufficiency of the argument for the ban's expressly caused outcomes is found also in the fact that it's all but certain that Trump will not present anything other than a circumstantially developed case for the ban's value.
