
Trump’s “Ban Muslims” Proposal Is Not Far Outside the U.S. Mainstream - shadowmoses
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/08/donald-trumps-ban-muslims-proposal-is-wildly-dangerous-but-not-far-outside-the-u-s-mainstream/
======
erbo
The President has the authority to suspend entry of any class of aliens for
any length of time, for any reason. [1] Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1980,
disallowing Iranians entry into the country, and for similar reasons. [2]
That's only the most recent historical example.

[1] 8 USC § 1182(f); see
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182)

[2] [http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-
irani...](http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-
coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield) ; see also
[http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-
immigrants...](http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/)

~~~
iofj
Thankfully congress has the power to change that with a normal majority.

~~~
erbo
Certainly, they can change any laws they like, subject to the normal
legislative process, including a Presidential veto.

Of course, they could try to ram that through before Obama leaves office, to
avoid such a veto. However, I can think of few better ways for Congress to
_ensure_ a Trump victory.

------
blucoat
> [The media] simply do not see that as their role. For most of them, a
> posture of “neutrality” and “opinion-free” blankness are the highest values.

> ... that’s all one can expect from large sectors of the U.S. media: cowardly
> neutrality, feigned analytical objectivity ...

> Shortly before this article was published this morning, Cuomo re-appeared on
> Twitter and apparently had a change of heart from last night’s proclamation.
> ... Sometimes, social media shaming works.

Am I the only one really bothered by what the author of this article thinks
news should be? As an instrument to shut down political ideas you don't like?
I find it ironic that he criticizes the idea of limiting freedom of speech to
fight terrorism, but then thinks we should turn around and silence bigots.

~~~
shadowmoses
I think journalists have opinions - and sharing those opinions is a big part
of 'news' \- whether you like it or not, that's constantly done, either
through direct words, or through more subtle means. That's why you have
'conservative' and 'liberal' entities of the news.

Moreover, the media also decides what's important - think about how they've
covered Trump vs. Sanders - Trump is selling ratings, they are promoting his
message in a way that's unequal to other candidates, and then saying 'oh,
we're being neutral.'

~~~
blucoat
I agree with you that Trump gets a ridiculously disproportionate amount of
news -- not a surprise, considering how much money covering him makes -- but
that's not how I interpreted the article's complaints. It read to me like the
author was upset that the media weren't actively denouncing him, like they had
some moral obligation to. If I've misinterpreted that then that's my error.

~~~
shadowmoses
Yeah, don't know. Agree w/ you that journalists/ reporters do not need to have
moral obligations, though [unless they make moral statements, and are not
electing to do so in certain cases] - but even that's a slightly different
issue.

------
rdancer
As much as I love Greenwald, he can be really facetious. Trump said that
immigrant Muslims should not be admitted, not citizens. Some hacks reporting a
late-night e-mail that was put straight few hours later notwithstanding. The
article notes that at the very end, but why not link it from where the
allegation is made?

And, ladies and gentlemen, we _bomb_ Muslims, day and night, and have been
doing so non-stop since the beginning of this century. Let's keep things in
perspective: temporary immigration ban vs. forever war. Cannot agree more with
the Teju Cole quote toward the end.

~~~
geezer
Its naive to believe that President Trump's _temporary_ ban on Muslim
immigration will be the end of the story. It will just be the start of a
nightmare. It took about 10 years for the gas chambers to fire up after Hitler
came to power.

------
harmegido
I just watched Schindler's List again recently. I kept thinking, "how could
this happen?"

~~~
seivan
You're comparing a religion and political ideology where large parts of its
1600 000 000 followers think it's okay to kill apostates... with Jewish and
Roma targeted for genocide because of eugenics?

You do realize Islam isn't a race. Ex-Muslims aren't dead nor acquired whiter
skin tone.

Trumps is an idiot, that goes without saying. But people like sure do help him
the best you can.

~~~
geezer
> You're comparing a religion and political ideology where large parts of its
> 1600 000 000 followers think it's okay to kill apostate

People in civilized societies are judged based on their actions, not their
beliefs.

If President Trumps ends up gassing 3-6 million Muslims in the United States,
it wouldn't be any less worse than Hitler gassing 6 million Jews.

~~~
pvaldes
Sorry, but Trump is not the president

------
shadowmoses
In any case, I thought the final paragraph was the most important: "So by all
means: unleash the contempt and the righteous indignation for Trump. It’s
well-deserved. But that should not obscure everything that led to this moment,
nor exonerate those who for years have been spewing unadorned anti-Muslim
animus from multiple corners and under various banners. They’re more subtle
and diplomatic (and thus more insidious) than Trump, but they’re reading from
the same script."

------
Erazal
"Given that an ISIS attack in Paris just helped fuel the sweeping election
victory of an actually fascist party in France". What is this low level
journalism doing on HN ? 1\. The "Front National" is an extremely conservative
party with racist undertones but certainly not fascist. The Republican Party
seems far more conservative on certain subjects. However the "Front National"
does have quite a statist vision of the economy. 2\. It is far from having won
a "sweeping victory". It may win, worst case scenario, 4 regions out of 13
next Sunday, which is unprecedented but not a sweeping victory.

~~~
morsch
So the sentence should be _the unprecedented electoral success of an extreme
right wing party in France_? That's not a big stretch. And his point, for what
it's worth, stands.

~~~
dragonwriter
> So the sentence should be the unprecedented electoral success of an extreme
> right wing party in France?

Its not even clear that the particular results are tied to the attack. While
the connection seems attractive to draw, it leaves out consideration of the
fact that, while the result was unprecedented _for this particular kind of
election_ , FN won a unprecedent success in a different set of French
elections last year -- being the leading party in France in the European
Parliament elections (following a series of successes in France municipal
elections earlier in the year) and securing more than a third of France's
seats; it seems a lot more like the FN is just having a surge of popularity
that predates the attacks by a least a year, and that _that_ was the source of
the results earlier this month, rather than the attacks led to the results
this month.

