It is a simple argument. It is also a complete logical fallacy.

If you increase the number of people in a population, and those you have added commit crime at the same rate as the population they join, the number of crimes will increase.

If they commit crimes at a lower rate, the number of crimes still increases.

If they commit crimes at a higher rate, the number of crimes still increases.

It's not a question of mitigating existing crime ('throw out all the men, hur-de-hur-hurr'), it is a question of exposing the existing population to further crime, and the added risk of improperly vetting those who would enter the country under false pretenses and then go shoot up a gay nightclub in California.

Now, why those countries? Ask Obama. He chose them. They are not so much as mentioned in the Executive Order. They are, however, the countries listed as exempt (as of 18th February 2016) in the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015". Yes, 2015. Under the Obama administration.

You'll recall the outrage and foaming back then about that, right? Oh.

I'd imagine Trump has, in his discussions with Dept Homeland Security, decided to review those exact countries that Obama singled out (Obama designated them 'countries of concern'), and has put a temporary 3-month restriction on entry. Note, that's not a blanket "ban", but a restriction.

Of course, he's just doing what the previous POTUS did for 6 months in 2011. You'll recall the outrage and foaming back then about that, right? Oh.

Tell you what though. This has demonstrated, even more so, the terrifying grip both the media and vested-interest groups like the "Open society foundation" have on people. We're being played. Enjoy your fake news.

Edited by davenotamonkey (29 Jan 2017 2.18pm)

Perhaps Obama should not have designated Iran a "country of concern" then? Presumably one doesn't do so on a whim.

If the current President, on information from the previous administration, judges that better vetting and more information is needed before admitting citizens of certain countries, who are you to argue with that?

Many Muslim countries refuse access to Jews or anybody who has been to Israel. But that's ok isn't it - but Trump issues a 90 day halt and the lib/left go into meltdown, usual double standards.

Oddly those countries actually pose the lower levels of threat to the USA because they are the hardest of countries from which to claim refugee status and citizenship from in thee US.

Problematically however they're also countries within which the intelligence agencies need to operate assets and cultivate informants, which is much harder to achieve if you cannot offer refuge as an option (not to mention employ linguistic assets from).

Problem for the US is that none of these countries have been involved in attacks in the US but are Muslim nations with limited to negligible US economic exchange. Unlike Saudi and the UAE who are a) major funders sponsors and exporters of terrorism b) major US economic allies.

Its almost as if he had to deliver on an election promise but without actually doing something that would affect US, and his own personal, business interest.

As long as the US sells Saudi arms, those arms will end up in the hands of sunni terrorists esp in Iraq and Syria.