> Isn't that what Trump's "Muslim ban" is?

Actually you are correct, Trump promised this in his campaign and has tried to enact it in a few different ways. I am unsure why you are being voted down.

In the down voter's defence the comment is somewhat trollish. But it's hard to be anything but trollish about the subject.

Source for this please. This claim is repeated quite often, but the only 'source' I've been able to find is when Trump was being mobbed by yelling people(after a debate or a speech), some activist asked him about 'banning muslims', and Trump started talking about how we need to build a wall and secure our borders. Basically - Trump misheard or misunderstood the question, and people take that as him advocating for a general Muslim ban.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," his campaign said in a statement.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-an...

Not exactly a campaign promise, but Trump did inquire about how he could legally ban Muslims. One of his travel bans was even thrown out because a judge interpreted this to be evidence that Trump really was trying to do a Muslim ban https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...

Except that it wasn't- it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/supreme-court-travel-...

People will dishonestly refer to it as a 'Muslim Ban' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in the end it only diminishes the credibility of those who want to allow immigration from those countries.

Trump's most recent travel ban was not "upheld" by the Supreme Court--it was allowed to take effect while legal challenges are pending.[1] At the same time, the Supreme Court instructed the Courts of Appeals hearing the cases to "render [their] decision[s] with appropriate dispatch," presumably so that the Supreme Court can consider the case and issue a final ruling quickly (well, "quickly" in legal time).[2]

Also, it is inaccurate to claim there is "overwhelming evidence" that the ban is not a Muslim ban, and it is an unhelpful ad hominim attack to call anyone who thinks it's a Muslim ban dishonest. The US District Court in Hawaii held that "EO-3 plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the Ninth Circuit has found antithetical to ... the founding principles of this Nation."[3] I.e., it's a Muslim ban. And the Ninth Circuit recently upheld this opinion.[4]

The Supreme Court might overturn the Ninth Circuit decision, but you might want to edit your comment so it's less wrong.

[1] read the article you linked to!!

[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr1_j4... and https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr_4gd...

[3] http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-2bab-d519-a57f-7fabf1...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/us/travel-ban-court.html

>People will dishonestly refer to it as a 'Muslim Ban' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

I stand by this statement, as 'Muslim ban' is semantically false; Muslims are not banned from the US. If you can disprove this let me know.

Your link is seriously confusing (the article itself is correct, but your reading of it is not), because there have been several iterations of the travel ban, and the first one that Trump had after promising a Muslim ban during the campaign, and which Rudy Giuliani referred to in an interview as a Muslim ban, was thrown out, but your article is about a later, modified travel ban (that underwent a more serious legal review). One reason people call it a Muslim ban is because some of the people involved in creating it have called it that, which is not dishonest.

If somebody says that a certain travel ban was thrown out for being a Muslim ban, and you respond that a different travel ban was upheld, then that's just going to mislead people.

You know why this claim is “repeated quite often”? Others have already given multiple citations. But it’s one thing to miss a news item or two, it’s quite another to essentially say, “I don’t pay attention to the news whatsoever, so imma gonna need a citation for that thing that was the headline in every major newspaper last year.” Hell, even I knew that Beyoncé was pregnant.

He litterally wrote on his campaign website that he was calling for a complete ban on Muslims entering the country.

If your values and ideas aren't so convincing and inherently good and right that people voluntarily moving to your country don't want to adopt them and you need to resort to banning them rather than accepting them into your country and proving with your way of life how much better your values and ideas are, then how good are those values and ideas really?

Free speech but when free speech doesn't work ban the other speakers and live in a bubble. Awesome.

You really think that your beliefs are so obviously superior to every other belief system ever - even millennia-old self-reinforcing super-memetic religious ideologies - that everyone will just automatically start thinking like you if given the chance? Really?

This strikes me very much as a classical cognitive failure: An inability to understand that other people actually, truly think differently than you do. E.g. Other people actually believe that God is real. Actually, truly, like he's really there. And they'll act like it.

You're completely wrong on this entire thing. The ban is not about values, it is about not being able to acceptably vet who is entering the country when they originate from certain areas.

And to your point, even though it is an incorrect analysis of the situation - what makes you think that people just do what is inherently good and right? Prisons exist in every country for a reason.

> The ban is not about values, it is about not being able to acceptably vet who is entering the country when they originate from certain areas.

My spouse is an Iranian national and affected by the ban. I'm from Germany, where we live. Why can't the Trump administration vet her, given that previous administrations could and did?

Because they don't trust the Iranian government to provide accurate and complete information about her.

Previous administrations may have extended that trust, but that doesn't prove they were correct to do so.

They also said it would take 90 days to implement "extreme vetting". If it was just about trusting other governments, they wouldn't have promised that at all.

Why haven't they done it nearly a year later? Probably a good indicator not to blindly trust autocrats who run election campaigns on xenophobia.

What kind of information? How is this presumed information exchange supposed to work? Is the idea that if I travel to the United States, or apply for a visa, that the US will query my government / my government's secret agencies for information about me, and my government will comply? Because (hopefully) that isn't really how it works.

The question isn't about vetting one person - it is about laying out a general rule that we won't accept people from countries where terror cells are common and the rule of law and record keeping is weak.

We are both long-time German residents. What kind of records do you need?

There is no such thing as a "Muslim Ban" in America.