DXBtoDOH

The ban is badly done and silly and more posturing than anything realistic from a security perspective and only makes America look bad in the eyes of the world. It burns many bridges even with countries that aren't involved and sends out strong messages (fair or not, that's how the world is viewing it). There's hypocrisy involved - why not Saudi or Pakistan, where many of the terrorists originated from? A more experienced president would simply have had a subtle, indirect ban via a tight vetting and approvals process that would have rejected all visa applications rather than making a public statement about it via an executive order.

But there's truth that much of the reaction is because it's Donald Trump and people are looking for any excuse to be outraged by Trump.

There is also an ideological element. The US was supposed to be above these kinds of petty politicking you find in the Middle East, whether it's open bans on Israelites or unofficial bans on on Syrians/Iranians/etc in the GCC countries.

flood2

I agree that it is badly done and perceived as a muslim ban. Be interesting to see how many ME countries let in people from these 7 countries...

Boomhauer

It isn't a Muslim ban as most Muslim majority countries aren't on the list.

scrubbedexpat141

People will justify this sort of shit by any means possible.

DXBtoDOH

The Trump ban is for 90 days, I believe, plus six months on all refugees, so it's not a permanent ban by any means. One would think judging from the reaction it was a ban for the foreseeable future. We can debate the merits of the ban, but at the same time it's foolish to ignore that many people have concerns and it's a politician's job to address those concerns. It's how the politicians address the concerns that makes the difference.

If I were president and wanted a ban, I would have said, look, there's a lot of terror problems in those countries, there's 'sufficient evidence' that some people from those countries are trying to get into the US to commit terror activities, then we need to reevaluate our screening and vetting process to bring in a stricter and more thorough process, and the best way to do this is to put in a temporary ban on all visitors beginning on 1 March and lasting for 90 days, and all current holders of visas to the US would not be affected. At the end of the 90 day we would have implemented a stronger vetting process to screen out the potential threats to American citizens.

The difference between Trump and me is the tone. And that hundreds of millions don't hate me

Bahtatboy

So Sadiq Khan blasts Trump's policy as "cruel, prejudiced and counterproductive" at a reception last night at which representatives from Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen were invited and present.

Haven't yet seen any reports of his strong criticism of those countries' discriminatory policy regarding visitors from a certain country (or even those who have visited that country).

scrubbedexpat141

That's the key bit though, he didn't do that bit.

The man can't help but be controversial. You're right - there's an idiot factor in there which will be jumped on by some at every chance.

But this visa ban was so badly handled and executed it's laughably stupid and he deserves the criticism.