The Immigration Game

When thinking about this ban of refugees from seven Middle Eastern countries you have to take into account different factors in concerns to the legalities as well as the impact that it will have on the United States as well as the world.

Before any person that slams this article for thinking that Trump is the only President that is doing something like this, just let it be known that further down in the article there will be other examples.

The biggest concern about this piece of executive legislation is what it can lead to, but at the current moment it is two sides of the same coin; one of optimism and one of serious concern.

Is there any precedent to Trump's executive order?

Well... yes and no.  Two notable refugee bans on citizens from Middle Eastern citizens have been implemented in the past:

• 1979- President Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranians from entering the US unless they opposed the new Iranian rulers or in need of medical attention.  His executive order came in response to the Iran Hostage situation where 60 Americans from the American embassy in Tehran were held hostage for 444 days. (Heavy.com)
• 2011- President Barack Obama's 60-day ban on Iraqi's coming to the US was in response to a Kentucky case that two Iraqi refugees were plotting to commit terrorist acts on US soil.  It also led to further investigation that the vetting process was too relaxed at some times and there were now several suspected terrorists that had slipped through the cracks via the refugee process.  (Heavy.com)

How does this play into the current refugee ban?

While both those examples are being used to support the current ban, there are two major factors that separates Trump's ban from Obama's and Carter's ban: Business and religion.

The Trump administration's main target for this ban is on Islam itself veiled under the guise that too many of the refugees are potential Islamic extremists.  While it is true that the countries of Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen have had serious internal terrorism issues (Iran is also on the ban list, but they don't have a serious terrorism problem, just an Ayatollah really hates the US), no one from any of those countries has done any significant terrorist damage to US soil.  Which brings me to the next point: 9/11.

Does this have anything to do with September 11, 2001?

In the executive order it states from the beginning "Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program." 

But hold on one second: none of the countries listen in this new ban had any part in the 9/11 attacks.  What makes even less sense is that the countries that were responsible for the attacks aren't even listed for the ban. The attacks on September 11, 2001 were perpetrated by al-Qaeda who were based in Afghanistan and allowed to operate under the eyes of the oppressive Taliban regime.  The leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, was a wealthy Saudi who moved to Afghanistan to train his terrorist organisation for a massive attack on the US.  When the attack happened, hijackers from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt took 3,000 lives that day from three different sites on the eastern part of the US (New York, DC, and Pennsylvania).  

So... why is Saudi Arabia et al. not banned?

Good question... but let's digest each country individually:

• UAE- It is an emerging economic power that came out of nowhere to be a destination for visitors all around the globe.  It is pretty stable and there haven't been too many issues in terms of terrorism so it's very understandable for them to not be included in this ban.
• Lebanon- A lot of internal struggle that includes a recent civil war.  It is also where Hezbollah has a strong political influence and it's military section is considered to be a terrorist organization.  In terms of religion Lebanon is 54% Muslim, 40.5% Christian, and 5.4% Druze.  I could see them being added to the list, but I am sure that a country that has 40.5% of their population being Christian had to factor into the non-ban. (CIA)
• Egypt- In terms of damage, Egypt is doing more damage to itself and their people than they are doing the United States.  A focal point of the Arab Spring the country is still in a long struggle between how the politics of the state should be run and the various opinions of their citizens.  Most, if not all the people that are leaving the country as refugees are leaving because of the political instability and its crumbling economy so there is no real reason for Trump to place them on the ban list (which it obviously did not).
• Saudi Arabia- It has sharia law, it prevents women from doing most things males can do, and it has suspected ties to terrorism in both the supply and funding of terrorism.  Congress even overrode Obama's veto of a piece of legislation called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) that lets people who were personally affected by the 9/11 attacks the ability to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.  As stated before, Osama bin Laden was a wealthy Saudi that moved to Afghanistan to expand al-Qaeda.  If there was any country more worthy of Trump's executive order it would be Saudi Arabia.

Why is Saudi Arabia not banned despite the obvious?

I think this tweet sums it up perfectly:

Trump's #MuslimBan is *not* about post-9/11 security.

Here, I drew a picture for those hard of understanding. pic.twitter.com/6XFDhy2OAh

— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@MuslimIQ) January 28, 2017

Even though he has sever his business ties to get rid of any conflict of interest it doesn't mean there isn't the same amount of pull or influence.  Whether he is in office for four years or eight years he doesn't want to anger the Saudis when he goes back to controlling the Trump Empire.  Not banning anyone from Saudi Arabia keeps him in the good graces of the Saudi businessmen that he has dealt with in the past.

How does religion play a role in the ban?

All seven countries have very high percentages of people who belong to the Islamic faith which means they have a low percentage of Christians.  Trump even stated that any Christians coming from those areas will be able to go through the refugee process faster than their Muslim counter parts.  In an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network he states:

They’ve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.

He makes it very clear that Christians will always take preference to Muslims as long as he is the President.  In case he forgot the Constitution bans the US and any of its states to recognize or sponsor any religion.  The separation of Church and State is meant to prevent warped views from taking over and forcing unwanted viewpoints on people.  Even though the ban is on immigrants, the First Amendment still applies (along with the Lemon Test).

And in the case of Border Protection going against court orders to let those detained that have green cards to have access to lawyers.  That in itself is a violation of the 14th Amendment which gives everyone equal protection under the laws of the United States.  That means if a person is in the United States is being subject to questioning they have to right to a lawyer (via the Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona).

Are we starting the slippery slope towards internment and (hopefully not) the genocide of Muslims?  I try to not get extreme, but after I started to read War & Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust by Doris L. Bergen there was a quote that struck a chord that makes me worry what we may be getting into:

Widespread negative attitudes on their own do not create a holocaust, but they are a necessary condition for mass persecution—that is, the rest of the population must regard certain groups as legitimate targets in order for them to participate in or tolerate open assault.

Sure, this ban is temporary, but will it become permanent?  And when will Trump introduce that Muslim registry that he has mentioned during his campaign?  When will it get to the stage that the government actively seeks out Muslims to persecute and imprison?  I know not all of Trump's supporters are extreme in their views as plenty of them voted for him because of his outsider status, but when someone posts in my local news comment section about the ban that "the rapists in Sweden were Afghan immigrants.  Are all immigrants criminals? No, but why take the risk[?] We have enough to worry about.  Sick of giving immigrants full benefits of citizenry in this country.  Let's start with the Muslims and keep it going with the Mexican[s] and Europeans.  This is just a good start."  When does that turn into the majority opinion?  That's the scary thought.  It cannot happen and the protests in major airports around the US against this ban shows that we came to the aid of the Muslims so it doesn't happen to us next.