Well no, its not, he was specific about the ban being against Muslims, not specific nations. Aside from the fact that the nations selected have no reasonable rational as to why they're ahead of other nations, it would have been unconstitutional for him to make a ban on religious grounds (US Freedom of Religion).

As such, its effectively also a ban on Christians as well as other minority religious groups in those countries which are also facing persecution (very unfortunate if you're a Druze or Christian seeking Asylum in the US, who are being murdered by IS in Syria - the Druze and Christian Syrians make up about 13% of the Syrian Population - but are disproportionate in their experience of persecution by IS).

This also doesn't include that fact that the problem the US really has is within the Sunni Sulfi sects of Islam, which typically has its militancy aimed against Sunni Islamists and involved in regional political issues.

Of course Sunni Sulfist militants are quite happy to murder Shia and Ismali Muslims - who now cannot claim refuge in the US (despite being allied against IS in Iraq, alongside the US and being non-violent in the case of Ismalis).

I don't see the problem, this was one of Trumps pledges before he became President, it did not stop Americans voting for him in their droves.

By the way, when's that wall going up;;;;

Excuse my ignorance and hopefully I might learn something from you

The problem is that you don't necessarily want to stop suspected terrorists entering the country,
Why ? isn't that eliminating the risk at source, or is it that these terror cells may present a risk to citizens travelling abroad ?

what you really want to do is be able to identify them entering the country, and track them (and any associates).
To what end ? if they disappear off the radar, then you're in a manhunt situation, which is extremely difficult. And if they then go ahead to commit terrorist acts, you've endangered citizens' lives. And if you catch them ? an expensive trial, life in prison, or deport ?

Restriction on nations doesn't really work that effectively, given that people travelling from places like Yemen, Sudan, Iraq etc are already subject to rather intense immigration and visa requirements.

You need really to identify how people are being radicalised, and what grievences are causing people to embark on radicalisation, and address those. You can win a 'war on ideas' with bans, bullets and rhetoric.

The Quebec attack was against Muslims, possibly by other Muslims, by people who it seems were Canadian possibly even a Muslim Canadian.

In terms of the US, I find it rather weird that the US is so adamant to stop potential terrorists entering the US, and yet utterly rejects any form of gun control and restrictions - An issue that actually results in far more attacks on US soil and costs US civilian lives.
That's the way it is. US people have guns for 'protection', and yet loads of them are shot/killed by their own weapons, year on year.

Its especially odd given that the US senate recently voted down a bill on preventing people on the terrorist no fly list from owning or purchasing firearms.

Which to me, kind of suggests the kind of bulls*** this nonsense is all about.

When the Mexicans agree to pay for it.
I wish our politicians would act in the same way as Trump. This is my policy,this is what i will do if you vote for me. Our politicians wait until the next election is nearing before making a half arsed attempt at acting on their promises. At least Trump is doing what he said he would unlike Obama who played at being President.