The immigration policy of the previous administration would also have rejected the people targeted with the bombs.

It's a great rhetorical strategy to conflate the attacks on various militant groups (that many people did oppose) with a blanket policy based on country of origin, but it's pretty weak sauce.

I don't see where anybody said that.

It's possible to think that bombing is wrong, while still holding the opinion that the immigration order is worse.

If he's going to stop purchasing and using American good and cancel plans to come to America after the immigration policy was implemented, but not after Obama's targeted killings in Yemen and elsewhere, then clearly the former crossed a line while the latter didn't.

You're replying to a poster who is trying to divert discussion. Please don't engage, because the post is not trying to have a discussion, it's trying to divert the rest of us from talking about the current administration.

You're seeing the conservative social media strategy in action -- repeat talking points to divert discussion whenever "their side" is criticized.

If we want real discussion we have to ignore efforts to change the subject!

An awfully good point – thanks.

Why are you trying to change the subject away from immigration policy? I could also talk about how the president is trying to subvert the media to sell his immigration policies, but that would not be relevant in this thread. If you want to talk about that subject, post a new article.

I think you're incorrect (and perhaps a little paranoid) about this being, as you say,

'...the conservative social media strategy in action -- repeat talking points to divert discussion whenever "their side" is criticized.'

tomp isn't trying to change the subject. Instead he asks a valid moral question: why would someone refuse to visit the USA because of Trump's (comparatively insignificant) executive order, yet the same person not be put off by a far more morally repugnant act: Obama's killing of thousands with drone attacks.

tomp also has a strong argument in his comment below about hypocrisy. I'd want him on my team in a debate - he sounds like an honest man.

I enjoy pointing out what I percieve as great hypocrisy. Somehow, disallowing foreigners from entering your country is suddenly better than starting wars and extrajudicial executions. It appears as if many people are protesting because of ideology (republican == bad), not because of their actual moral beliefs.

No, but why would Trump being terrible make me ok with that?

I mean, I'm not happy that America has been at war since 9/11. I simply don't think I can attack America for being in wars, that my own country is participating in, at least not without being a hypocrite.