I think it's correct to say this executive order is not a, "global Muslim ban," but it's clearly focused on specifically stopping Muslims from coming to the US.
The "logic" for the countries selected is that they were already "countries of concern." [1] However, the executive order is written in such a way as to allow religious minorities in, even though they're from a "country of concern." The implication is that what makes the countries, "of concern," is their Muslim majorities. Otherwise, it would be unsafe to let in other religious groups as well.
There are all kinds of explanations for this, of course. The administration may have wanted to ban everyone, but didn't want the heat from the Christian right. They may have wanted to specify Christians instead of minorities, but they would look even more anti-semitic than they already do [2]. They may have written a sloppy executive order and not forseen how it would play.
They may also have used a list of countries from the Obama era as cover and written the order such that it would focus on Muslims with plausible deniability about that focus. They've already said they can add more countries to the list.
I think pointing out that the executive order could have banned more Muslims is worth saying but somewhat misses the point. The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers. The fact that most Muslims can still get to the US does not change the nature of the order.
The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers.
I think it would be more exact to say that the writers believe some self-identified Muslims are sufficiently dangerous that it justifies temporarily banning anyone associated with certain Muslim-majority countries from coming into the US until we can distinguish those who wish to cause harm from those who do not. And since it's difficult to imagine how one could ever distinguish between these groups perfectly, and since other countries can be added to the list, it seems possible that this will lead to a permanent ban on Muslims entering the US.
I find their precept reasonable: there are individuals from these countries who claim to be Muslim and who intend to enter the US and cause us harm --- possibly because we bombed their cousin's wedding, killing half their relatives and maiming half the rest. It seems likely that our current approach to immigration is not sufficient to prevent these harmful individuals from entering the US.
So what should we do? Personally, I think we should stop killing people with drones, since I can't see how this is actually helping the situation. But given that previous administrations have killed a lot of people, and given that some of their surviving relatives are likely to seek revenge, is there anything we can do to protect ourselves? Or is the threat overblown, and any attempt at mitigation is worse than the damage the these (potentially non-existent) terrorists can do to us?
I understand the point you're making about the difficulty of the situation, but I go the other direction.
If someone wishes to come to the US, we'll need to ask if they're a religious minority. I'm sure that anyone wishing to attack the US (Muslim or otherwise) would be willing to lie to the US so they appear to fit the requirements.
To deal with that possiblitiy, the US would have to do research on that person's background. If it can conclude with satisfaction they actually are of that religion, they can come. Otherwise, the US denies the application with "not enough evidence."
If the US can do the research on their religious background, why can't the US do research on their political affiliations? On their views on the US?
Even from a, "damn the morals, let's be practical," perspective religious belief strikes me as a very weak indicator. Its confounded by all kinds of personal factors. Especially in muslim majority nations.
To your question: A mix of both. I think one of the "disadvantages" of a free society is that it's easier to commit terrorism. Yet we have few attacks. I think it's sensible to check that someone is not an active member of a group that wishes a country harm, but I think we need to consider the cost in lives to that filtering. If we double the time spent checking someone's background and they die after the halfway point, is that moral? If we half the number of people we can process to lower the risks, is that moral?
If nothing else, I think the executive order is totally divorced from a reasonable and adult conversation about risk and morality.
The "logic" for the countries selected is that they were already "countries of concern." [1] However, the executive order is written in such a way as to allow religious minorities in, even though they're from a "country of concern." The implication is that what makes the countries, "of concern," is their Muslim majorities. Otherwise, it would be unsafe to let in other religious groups as well.
There are all kinds of explanations for this, of course. The administration may have wanted to ban everyone, but didn't want the heat from the Christian right. They may have wanted to specify Christians instead of minorities, but they would look even more anti-semitic than they already do [2]. They may have written a sloppy executive order and not forseen how it would play.
They may also have used a list of countries from the Obama era as cover and written the order such that it would focus on Muslims with plausible deniability about that focus. They've already said they can add more countries to the list.
I think pointing out that the executive order could have banned more Muslims is worth saying but somewhat misses the point. The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers. The fact that most Muslims can still get to the US does not change the nature of the order.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adminis... [2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/team_trump...