Is ISIS trying to export fighters through Saudi Arabia? Perhaps there are other constraints we have in our relationship with Saudi Arabia that would prevent such a ban? Perhaps this would be a bad move diplomatically? I'm sure if you think hard you can probably come up with more reasons, but I don't think you're interested in it, you just want to try to point out hypocracy. Or, maybe you are suggesting that the suspension did not go far enough?
There are a lot of people who will happily accept a temporary suspension of immigration from countries full of ISIS fighters who are trying to exploit our immigration system based on the president's word that the various security services need 90 days to tighten things up. There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest if literally anything more aggressive is done from here (and who also vehemently opposed the original proposal during the campaign.)
> There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest
Trump, of all people, has given no indication at all that his policy decisions will be swayed by protest.
> The slippery slope fallacy falls short.
It's not a slippery slope when Trump said that a Muslim ban was what he was going to do! It's not "oh, he might bring up banning all Muslims from entering at this rate". He already said he wanted to do that. Explicitly.
If you accept the premise (that the visa system has holes) then of course you would want to suspend immigration from high risk areas while those holes are addressed. Of course, I'm sure you don't agree with the premise. But you should at least acknowledge that if you did, that a suspension would be needed while revising the rules. To do otherwise would be transparently stupid, since it would basically advertise the vulnerability while leaving it open, giving people a timeline to exploit it.
Bullshit. The goal is claimed to be reduction of the risk of jihadists immigrating to the US to cause harm to Americans. You claim seems to be that by not including Saudi Arabia this will have no such effect. This claim is transparently false, unless you believe a) there is zero risk of jihadists at all in the first place, or b) that literally every jihadist who would have normally come from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia or another country on the non-suspended list to enter. Surely you can see how both of these is false.
> from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia
The fact that you believe subjects are allowed by flight origin rather than by a proof of nationality document like their passports shows a lot about your lack of understanding of the issue
point taken, bad actors could of course get false passports while still traveling from the countries on the list. perhaps now that i've accepted your point, you can try to resist additional ad hom attacks and actually address the structure of my counterargument as to why your overall argument is wrong?
