US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

[Evo]

Are those the guidelines and these are the rules
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/general-discussion-rules.716057/

There are the Global Guidelines that hold in all of the forums https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

And then some sub-forums have additional rules specific to that sub-forum, and these will be found pinned near the top of that sub-forum. General Discussion and Current Events both have their own additional sets of guidelines in addition to the Global Guidelines.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Glad I asked thank you.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

None of the terror attacks in the last 15 years was done by anyone from the 7 banned countries. The screening methods have been 100% effective for all countries on the ban list. There are other countries where they were not 100% effective.

It is not just a delay in "processing people". It blocks people that were "processed" already from entering the US again. It blocks people currently living in the US from making holidays elsewhere because they would not be allowed to get back in.
I don't get the impression that Trump wants to make a better screening system.
The numerous deaths in those countries are not speculations. They are real. The threat by those people, on the other hand, is imaginary. See the empty list of terror attacks from people from there.

Actually, the screening methods for those seven countries APPEAR to be effective, as we have had no known attacks by people from those countries so far. Which means we don't know if they are effective or not. Science requires we have a testable condition; only in this case, we have to wait for it to happen because ethically we can't induce it. We also didn't have problems with sleeper agents or sympathizers from Nazi Germany in WWII, until they were activated or became radicalized also.

The problem is, is it acceptable for us to allow a mass murder terrorist attack when we can take cost effective measures to reduce the possibility of it happening? From a strictly insurance cost-benefit risk viewpoint, of course we could allow it, and we don't need to increase the vetting process of people from those countries. Politically however, it's suicide. And frankly, while a low statistical probability of injury or death is meaningless to most people; like surgical complications, it isn't theoretical when it happens to you.

As for the people who were already processed; if the background check/vetting process was substandard for them, best practice is to re-investigate/re-vet using a more stringent criteria. That's exactly the way it works in industry and manufacturing, and that's the way it should work for national security.

 

[mfb]

Actually, the screening methods for those seven countries APPEAR to be effective, as we have had no known attacks by people from those countries so far. Which means we don't know if they are effective or not.

A terror attack does not go undetected. And the country of origin is known for every terrorist who killed people. The screening methods stopped 100% of all people from those seven countries who would have done a terror attack. We don't know how large that number is, of course, but that we don't know for any country.

The problem is, is it acceptable for us to allow a mass murder terrorist attack when we can take cost effective measures to reduce the possibility of it happening?

Where is this cost-effective measure? And how do you divide by 0 to measure its cost per benefit ratio?

And frankly, while a low statistical probability of injury or death is meaningless to most people; like surgical complications, it isn't theoretical when it happens to you.

We are not even talking about a small number. We are talking about literally zero.

 

[mheslep]

The screening methods stopped 100% of all people from those seven countries who would have done a terror attack.

MFB, you have previously referenced the 2016 Ohio attacker Artan (Somali), who wounded thirteen. The 2009 Kentucky arrests of Hammadi and Alwan (Iraqis) were clearly a "would have done". Also, I expect European screening methods for purposes of security are not entirely different than those used by the US. If so, the attacks in Europe so far, killing or wounding hundreds, e.g. Ansback July 2016- Syrian suicide bombing, only differ by geography and should be included in a statistical analysis.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The discussion here from some of the PF members is that, somehow, by screening and vetting people who enter the US more effectively from the seven countries that are currently under the "temporary" ban, that somehow this would make the US more secure from terrorist attacks. The problems with that logic are as follows:

1. The very act of screening and vetting people from these countries bring a level of suspicion on people from these communities (essentially tarring all peoples from these countries with the same brush), which is frankly unjust. This especially applies to people from Iraq -- under the current (temporarily suspended) travel ban, people from Iraqi Kurdistan who were the allies of the US in fighting ISIL and those Iraqis who worked with the US military as translators (and risked their lives doing so) would have been banned from entering the US.

2. The threats that the US face are not solely restricted either to the seven countries on the travel ban. This travel ban does nothing about Muslim travellers from countries outside this list, nor about home-grown radicals within the US. After all, one of the most famous captured Taliban members was a white American, John Walker Lindh.

3. The threats faced in the US are not even restricted to Muslim extremists. In actual fact, domestic right-wing groups also pose a grave threat to the US. Consider the following articles.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/...ger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinio...gest-terror-threat-is-from-the-far-right.html

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31...-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/

Also keep in mind, among the deadliest terrorist attacks that have struck the US prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing, committed by a white American extremist, Timothy McVeigh. And yet, we don't hear about screening or vetting American citizens, do we?

 

[Dr Wu]

Sorry if this is a repeat, but Trump ordered a MUSLIM BAN.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sion-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.ca2be7d81cc3

This isn't about banning from a few countries, it was about Muslims from countries that Trump doesn't do business with.

I agree with Evo here. Sometimes it's the spirit rather than the letter of the law that counts. I'm pretty sure it's the case here. Even so, if one is going to make this distinction, it should be made clear from the outset when taking a stand on such issues.

 

[dkotschessaa]

The discussion here from some of the PF members is that, somehow, by screening and vetting people who enter the US more effectively from the seven countries that are currently under the "temporary" ban, that somehow this would make the US more secure from terrorist attacks. The problems with that logic are as follows:

1. The very act of screening and vetting people from these countries bring a level of suspicion on people from these communities (essentially tarring all peoples from these countries with the same brush), which is frankly unjust. This especially applies to people from Iraq -- under the current (temporarily suspended) travel ban, people from Iraq Kurdistan who were the allies of the US in fighting ISIL and those Iraqis who worked with the US military as translators (and risked their lives doing so) would have been banned from entering the US.

2. The threats that the US face is not solely restricted either to the seven countries on the travel ban. This travel ban does nothing about Muslim travellers from countries outside this list, nor about home-grown radicals within the US. After all, one of the most famous captured Taliban members was a white American, John Walker Lindh.

3. The threats faced in the US is not even restricted to Muslim extremists. In actual fact, domestic right-wing groups also pose a grave threat to the US. Consider the following articles.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/...ger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinio...gest-terror-threat-is-from-the-far-right.html

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31...-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/

Also keep in mind, among the deadliest terrorist attacks that have struck the US prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing, committed by a white American extremist, Timothy McVeigh. And yet, we don't hear about screening or vetting American citizens, do we?

I agree with Evo here. Sometimes it's the spirit rather than the letter of the law that counts. I'm pretty sure it's the case here. Even so, if one is going to make this distinction, it should be made clear from the outset when taking a stand on such issues.

Exactly correct. The ONLY reason for the ban is for Trump to appeal to his main voter base - less educated and "low information" voters. They do not know the facts presented here or how to calculate basic odds such as "the likelihood me or someone I know will be injured by a Terrorist from a muslim country vs. by an American."

They were promised a Muslim ban (before he unpromised, and then promised again) and so he gave them something that would look good on paper.

-Dave K

 

[zoobyshoe]

Also keep in mind, among the deadliest terrorist attacks that have struck the US prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing, committed by a white American extremist, Timothy McVeigh. And yet, we don't hear about screening or vetting American citizens, do we?

I was going to respond to this by pointing out the FBI specifically recognizes domestic terrorists (of the Timothy McVeigh type) as an important problem, and link you to the essay about it they have on their website.

However, I find that they've completely redone their website and domestic terrorists are no longer discussed as such. And sadly, the formerly serious and sober FBI.gov site now looks like it was designed by some cheap, third rate new organization like Yahoo or something. Ominous.

 

[boomtrain]

The discussion here from some of the PF members is that, somehow, by screening and vetting people who enter the US more effectively from the seven countries that are currently under the "temporary" ban, that somehow this would make the US more secure from terrorist attacks. The problems with that logic are as follows:

1. The very act of screening and vetting people from these countries bring a level of suspicion on people from these communities (essentially tarring all peoples from these countries with the same brush), which is frankly unjust. This especially applies to people from Iraq -- under the current (temporarily suspended) travel ban, people from Iraqi Kurdistan who were the allies of the US in fighting ISIL and those Iraqis who worked with the US military as translators (and risked their lives doing so) would have been banned from entering the US.

Why exactly is that unjust? If they're riskier as visa holders than people from other parts of the world, why not screen them more thoroughly? This sounds like applying Bayesian logic to me.

2. The threats that the US face are not solely restricted either to the seven countries on the travel ban. This travel ban does nothing about Muslim travellers from countries outside this list, nor about home-grown radicals within the US. After all, one of the most famous captured Taliban members was a white American, John Walker Lindh.

Agreed, the ban should have probably included a country like Chechnya. For those of you who think that American vetting processes are currently strict and thorough, recall that the Russian's warned us about the Boston Marathon bombers, but they weren't detained.

3. The threats faced in the US are not even restricted to Muslim extremists. In actual fact, domestic right-wing groups also pose a grave threat to the US. Consider the following articles.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/...ger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinio...gest-terror-threat-is-from-the-far-right.html

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31...-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/

Also keep in mind, among the deadliest terrorist attacks that have struck the US prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing, committed by a white American extremist, Timothy McVeigh. And yet, we don't hear about screening or vetting American citizens, do we?

I would expect white Americans to be a bigger terrorist threat in absolute terms. Consider that there are 196,817,552 non-Hispanic white Americans and 3.3 million American Muslims. According to your newsweek article:

They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead.

I thought they were cherry picking a bit by starting the clock in 2002, but that doesn't change the relative risk much. It's kind of impressive that two populations can have a terrorist body count so similar when one population is 60 times more numerous. (one caveat is that not all of the Islamic terrorism since 2002 has been from citizens)

 

[StatGuy2000]

Why exactly is that unjust? If they're riskier as visa holders than people from other parts of the world, why not screen them more thoroughly? This sounds like applying Bayesian logic to me.

The question is whether they are in fact noticeably "riskier". Since you are invoking Bayesian inference here, you would need to assign a prior probability of a risk that individual X is a terrorist, then based on the data provided, update the probability (i.e. compute the posterior probability).

The thing is, the data already indicates that the overwhelming majority of Muslims from any country have no sympathy whatsoever with jihadists. Therefore, the posterior probability will simply overwhelm whatever assumption (the prior) you may have. So it doesn't make much sense to ban these people. Remember, we are talking about travel bans, not screening.

Agreed, the ban should have probably included a country like Chechnya. For those of you who think that American vetting processes are currently strict and thorough, recall that the Russian's warned us about the Boston Marathon bombers, but they weren't detained.

Actually, there should not have been a blanket ban on citizens from any country. As for vetting processes involved, the Boston Marathon bombers were American citizens (they were raised/educated in the US and were naturalized as US citizens), and they were radicalized while living in the US (one of whom was radicalized while traveling to Chechnya, but who is to say that the extremist ideas may not have occurred to him while living in the US). How, may I ask, should the US have "vetted" or "screened" them?

Do you honestly think a blanket ban would have made any difference?

I would expect white Americans to be a bigger terrorist threat in absolute terms. Consider that there are 196,817,552 non-Hispanic white Americans and 3.3 million American Muslims. According to your newsweek article:

I thought they were cherry picking a bit by starting the clock in 2002, but that doesn't change the relative risk much. It's kind of impressive that two populations can have a terrorist body count so similar when one population is 60 times more numerous. (one caveat is that not all of the Islamic terrorism since 2002 has been from citizens)

 

[Helios]

Why do some here bring up white people? What is the tactic? Comparisons and analogies are not logical proofs, they only illustrate something and can be used or misused. There is this peculiar method used where a comparison is made and the table is turned to white people. Examples; 1) Someone shoots and kills someone. Their defense is "Hey! Look at war. People kill each other all the time and they don't go to jail, and most of these killers are white. 2) Illegal Aliens? Hey! White people were the first illegal aliens and no one is complaining about them. 3) Terrorist? Hey! McVeigh was a terrorist and he was white. 4) Amazonian Cannibals? Let them though. Hey! Dahlmer was a Cannibal and he was white. There must be some exact name for this type of fallacy in a philosophy book. What is the response to these arguements?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would encourage people interested in this to read the Ninth Circuit's decision. It's remarkable in many ways, and if it is upheld will fundamentally change the way the US handles immigration and visas. While this particular ruling is a temporary injunction, the arguments are such that a major change in immigration and visas would be necessary. Some points of interest.

1. The issue of who has standing to sue has a novel aspect. Normally standing is granted to specific individuals who have received or will receive a specific harm. Case law says that a state cannot sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens. In this case the argument was made (and accepted) that state universities have suffered harm and therefore the state has standing to sue.
2. A good part of the decision argues that this is a bad idea. Historically, the question of whether an idea is good or bad has been left to the political process, with the courts determining whether it is legal or not. Every act of the federal government has its pros and cons, and its winners and losers, and the political process is the way the US navigates this. Historically, Congress either decides or delegates the decision, and in this case 8 U.SC. §1182 (f) delegates the decision to the President. The Ninth Circuit has decided that the President doesn't get to make this decision - the courts do - but does so without overturning the law. As far as I know, this is unprecedented.
3. The court made the argument that even though neither the statute nor the order mentions Muslims, it is still intended to be a Muslim ban. They cited Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp (1977), to hold that campaign speeches could show bad intent not present in the letter of the law (since the law predates Trump as a major candidate, it would have to). However, Arlington Heights held that the burden of showing intent falls on the challenger - and that it's not enough to have made statements in the past: the challenger needs to show that the act in question is the direct result of the positions behind these statements. An interesting outcome of this argument is that presumably the exact same act could have been done by a President Clinton and it would have been legal. I believe this is unprecedented.
4. The court argued that the Equal Protection clause applies to non-US citizens not in the US. This is also, I believe, unprecedented. It suggests that every country needs to be treated the same for visa purposes - which means an end to the open border with Canada, the Visa Waiver Program, etc.

And before I am pelted with rocks and garbage, let me quote Alan Dershowitz: "There's no conflict between not liking a ban and not regarding all of it as unconstitutional."

 

[phinds]

I would encourage people interested in this to read the Ninth Circuit's decision. It's remarkable in many ways

I have been making the exact same arguments to my liberal friends and have pretty much been pelted with rocks and garbage, to say nothing of hostile verbiage, despite my caveat that I think this particular ban is a terrible idea. I was appalled by the reasoning behind the Ninth Circuit's decision. I have since seen legal scholars arguing both sides of the case on the talking head shows. They're as conflicted as the politicians.

 

[mheslep]

...this case the argument was made (and accepted) that state universities have suffered harm and therefore the state has standing to ...

Which would for instance, if logically followed, allow states to sue to stop a federal attempt to close a miltary base in the state; perhaps a state could sue the US for *not* having a miltary base in a given state. Manufacturing heavy states could sue to stop federal trade agreements likely to move jobs out of state. Border states could sue to have the border enforced, whoops, or not given the day of the week the 9th sits.

quote Alan Dershowitz: "There's no conflict between not liking a ban and not regarding all of it as unconstitutional."

Interestingly, on a pundit show Dershowitz suggested that a bungled argument from the US lawyer partially enabled the court's response in that the US made a partially political argument instead of a purely constitutional argument, thus allowing the court to reply in kind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The court made the argument that even though neither the statute nor the order mentions Muslims, it is still intended to be a Muslim ban. They cited Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp (1977), to hold that campaign speeches could show bad intent not present in the letter of the law (since the law predates Trump as a major candidate, it would have to). However, Arlington Heights held that the burden of showing intent falls on the challenger - and that it's not enough to have made statements in the past: the challenger needs to show that the act in question is the direct result of the positions behind these statements. An interesting outcome of this argument is that presumably the exact same act could have been done by a President Clinton and it would have been legal. I believe this is unprecedented.

It is probably not unprecedented in the sense you think it is. I'm not a legal expert, but I have run into passing mention many times while reading that the legality or illegality of a act boils down to the intent behind it more often than not. This comes up in the case of fraud, for example. If the accuser can demonstrate the intent to defraud on the part of the accused, then the act was illegal. Otherwise the act can be explained as bad book keeping, inattention, error, etc. The exact same act is legal or not depending on the intention behind it. So, I don't find it hard to imagine that Clinton (or either Bush, or any other President) could have signed the exact same executive order and it would have been upheld as legal. If the banning of Muslims was completely incidental to their purpose, as opposed to a specific intention, they would not have done anything to complain about.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It is probably not unprecedented in the sense you think it is.

Your examples are in criminal law, where one element of a crime is mens rea, the guilty mind. This is not criminal law.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I have been making the exact same arguments to my liberal friends

I'm not trying to make an argument. I am trying to show how things will be different if the court is upheld, not whether "different" is better or worse Would requiring Canadians to get visas slow down the growth of Tim Hortons in the US? And if so, is that a good thing? This is too big for me.

 

[phinds]

I'm not trying to make an argument. I am trying to show how things will be different if the court is upheld ...

Yes. Me too. I don't LIKE the ban but that has had nothing to do with my argument ("argument" meaning just "the logic of my statements")

 

[Buckleymanor]

Your examples are in criminal law, where one element of a crime is mens rea, the guilty mind. This is not criminal law.

You might find that it also applies to domestic law or common law property disputes are often determined from the outset.
For example who did what to who first and what was there intent.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Your examples are in criminal law, where one element of a crime is mens rea, the guilty mind. This is not criminal law.

Intent seems to crop up in many branches of law as the decisive factor.

In the case used as a precedent here: Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp (1977) it comes in this way:

Proximate Cause Footnote 21 introduces an idea of proximate cause to these cases. Namely, it states that the petitioner must prove respondent had 1) an improper intent (i.e. that his intent was to discriminate against another race).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Arlington_Heights_v._Metropolitan_Housing_Development_Corp .
The law cited is the 14th amendment, the verdict was that the ordinance in question was constitutional, so I'm assuming this case (Arlington, etc) falls into the category of constitutional law. I think intent would come up very often in torts as well.

 

[NTL2009]

Intent seems to crop up in many branches of law as the decisive factor. ...

But doesn't that mean the act itself violates the law, and then intent determines if the violation was, well, ... intended.

From what I've read, this travel ban is totally legal, within the rights of the POTUS. So I don't see where intent enters into it.

It just really seems like a stretch to me to say there was intent beyond what the order itself dictates. I can think of cases where my words or beliefs go one way, but when I need to act on them in the corporate world for example, I do what is allowed and proper, regardless of my personal feelings. I think the Supreme Court nominee has said much the same.

And you forgot to add this from your source on Arlington Heights case:

In applying the aforementioned test, the court upheld the ordinance

 

[zoobyshoe]

But doesn't that mean the act itself violates the law, and then intent determines if the violation was, well, ... intended.

From what I've read, this travel ban is totally legal, within the rights of the POTUS. So I don't see where intent enters into it.

It just really seems like a stretch to me to say there was intent beyond what the order itself dictates. I can think of cases where my words or beliefs go one way, but when I need to act on them in the corporate world for example, I do what is allowed and proper, regardless of my personal feelings. I think the Supreme Court nominee has said much the same.

This whole thing is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Here's the ruling:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Scroll down to part VII for a discussion of the role intent plays.

And you forgot to add this from your source on Arlington Heights case:

No I didn't. Reread my post.

What the ruling there (Arlington, etc.) meant was not that intent is inadmissible or somehow moot, it simply meant the accusers failed to show there was bad (racially descriminatory) intent.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Ican think of cases where my words or beliefs go one way, but when I need to act on them in the corporate world for example, I do what is allowed and proper, regardless of my personal feelings. I think the Supreme Court nominee has said much the same.

Yes that is Ok.
The problem might arise when you are shown to have acted at the onset with personal feelings and the intent of those were racially motivated.
Which basically means it is not legal.

 

[Prideful]

Does the president not need a reason to execute an order like this as well? I would have thought there would have to be some sort of cause and effect law whereby the president could only execute a travel ban in the event of a recent terrorist attack domestically.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Does the president not need a reason to execute an order like this as well? I would have thought there would have to be some sort of cause and effect law whereby the president could only execute a travel ban in the event of a recent terrorist attack domestically.

Let's say it was me or you executing the order.We would have to show good reason if not it could reasonably be concluded that something we had previously said or done was why we made a travel ban to include only certain races of people.

 

[jadair1]

Let's say it was me or you executing the order.We would have to show good reason if not it could reasonably be concluded that something we had previously said or done was why we made a travel ban to include only certain races of people.

He never banned people of certain races or religions only people from certain countries. Not that I agree with the blanket ban from the 7 countries. Now if he had banned supporters of ISIS, Al Quida and other terrorist groups I would be all for it.

I am a Canadian and I would hope our government would be vetting people from these countries more carefully.

 

[mheslep]

... Now if he had banned supporters of ISIS, Al Quida and other terrorist groups I would be all for it...

...by scanning the ISIS/Al Qaeda barcode at the airport.

 

[jadair1]

No the intelligence agencies should have a good handle on terrorist supporters.

Look at who they are following on Facebook or twitter, if they attend a mosque with a radical Amon etc.

But that might be giving to much credit to "intelligence" agencies.

 

[mfb]

Someone who can be linked to those organizations is not allowed to enter anyway, the general ban didn't change anything there.

But that might be giving to much credit to "intelligence" agencies.

I think it is underestimating terrorists. Who would be so stupid to have a publicly visible connection to anyone linked to a terror organization?

 

[clope023]

Someone who can be linked to those organizations is not allowed to enter anyway, the general ban didn't change anything there.I think it is underestimating terrorists. Who would be so stupid to have a publicly visible connection to anyone linked to a terror organization?

They exist, lots of Anti-Fa's are open about their connection to the group on youtube, twitter, and other social media; Isis does have social media as well.

 

[Buckleymanor]

He never banned people of certain races or religions only people from certain countries. Not that I agree with the blanket ban from the 7 countries. Now if he had banned supporters of ISIS, Al Quida and other terrorist groups I would be all for it.

I am a Canadian and I would hope our government would be vetting people from these countries more carefully.

The main point was he took a random pop at certain countries, people and not others.It was as if to say I am President and take note this is what I can and will do.
In other words a direct way in implementing his authority and trying to set a style no matter if it's substance was right or wrong and without consultation.
The whole thing smacked of amateurism and something a petulant child might try to do to get his own way.
Rather than a President.

 

[TurtleMeister]

The main point was he took a random pop at certain countries, people and not others.

You should know that's not true. Trump's executive order was a broader implementation of the one ordered by the Obama administration.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/

 

[Buckleymanor]

You should know that's not true

And you should know that a blanket ban after no major incidents equals a random act.

 

[TurtleMeister]

And you should know that a blanket ban after no major incidents equals a random act.

President Obama was taking a "random pop at certain countries"? Or do you mean that it only becomes a random act when it goes from being a restriction to a ban? Or do you mean that it only becomes a random act when it goes from being issued by Obama to being issued by Trump?