One of the things I noticed is you passed over the people who are responsible for implementing and reporting to the President on this: Tillerson and Mattis. Neither of these men is anything remotely close to a Nazi. Mattis has far too much integrity, Tillerson as well.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21711926-rex-til...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/james-mattis-...
Mattis is unlikely to support a full ban on all Muslims as he is on record saying that we need our Middle Eastern allies. It's one of the reasons he's against the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Tillerson strikes me as far too ethical a player to subscribe to the notion that we need such an approach. If he's that fair minded at Exxon Mobile, I doubt much will change when he's SecState. Remember he's backed by people like Condaleeza Rice, someone I hardly consider a Nazi.
If you're worried about Trump deciding to just add all the countries, I doubt he will. Trump is known for not being a deep policy wonk (unlike Obama and W) and mostly an instinctual leader. He can get away with this because he relies heavily on his subordinates for advice and gives them a large amount of leeway. This is not necessarily a bad leadership style and in this case, I think we're pretty safe considering the people who need to make these decisions.
Should Trump add every majority Muslim country in the world to the banned travel list, or it extends for a period of time that is significantly longer than he initially established, I think going nuts is probably warranted. That would be a single incident worse than this. There's four years of Trump, if you don't agree with him it might be best to not exhaust your people too early. Remember what Kasparov said:
"The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth."
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/808750564284702720?lan...
Mostly that list reads as countries full of people that probably don't like us much and have reason to for better or for worse:
"What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing — or has bombed in the recent past — six of them. The U.S. has not bombed Iran, but has a long history of intervention including a recent cyberattack."
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-immigratio...
I hope you're right.
> That would be a single incident worse than this.
You're assuming he wouldn't be adding them little by little, which would be many small incidents, each about as bad as this one.
> There's four years of Trump, if you don't agree with him it might be best to not exhaust your people too early.
Yes, but you also need to take care to not wait too long before you act. I'd err on the side of protesting on this one.
> Mostly that list reads as countries full of people that probably don't like us much
I'm not sure many countries in the world are crazy about the US right now. Unfortunately (or fortunately), we don't ban travel based on who likes whom. There haven't been any US terrorists who came from Iran, so what's Trump's intention with this move?
> What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing — or has bombed in the recent past — six of them.
This move isn't going to mend any fences either.
Without further evidence that this is a stable pattern, you appear to be succumbing to this: https://www.xkcd.com/605/
That's why it doesn't say that. You start with seven countries, then add five more ("I didn't protest the first seven, why would I protest five?") then a few more, and pretty soon, you got all Muslim countries. It's barely been a week and it's already seven, I imagine the entire set of Muslim countries can't take more than a month or two.
> The ban on entry from these countries is 30 days to "reduce investigative burdens".
For now, yes. That gives the government a month to extend the duration, if they want to.
> After that point all countries on that list need to provide additional screening info in order for visas to be accepted.
It takes months to organize a protest, how long do you think it will take a country to institute "additional screening" for the single other special snowflake country that demands it? Meanwhile, none of those countries' residents can travel (or return) to the US.
> If the countries do not agree to provide said info after 60 days from notification, all nationals from that country will not be allowed entry unless under certain circumstances.
And that doesn't bother you?
> Instead of losing your mind over everything objectionable that Trump does, it might be best to conserve your strength
Conserve your strength for what? There won't be a single incident that's worse than this. Germany didn't go from Socialist utopia to Kristallnacht in a day.