川普禁止难民进入做得对么 [美国媒体]

Did Trump do the right thing by blocking refugees?

川普禁止难民进入做得对么？



First of all, I am not a Trump supporter. But I can't understand all the fuss about him blocking refugees from coming to USA. I think it has nothing to do with religion, ‘cause he didn't block Saudi Arabia or Jordan. But I could be wrong.

首先，我不是川普的支持者，但是我能理解所有外界关于他禁止难民涌入产生的争议。我觉得这跟地区无关，因为他没有禁止沙特与约旦，但我也可能是错的。


Marvin RR Cole, CEO and Founder at Ovamba (2013-present)
Updated Feb 3
The US is a nation of Immigrants
The puritans were religious refugees
The Germans and Jewish refugees into Ellis island were economic and religious refugees
The majority of the irish descended population were refugees from a famine
African Americans - NOT refugees - they were brought by force
No refugee has committed an act of terror on American Soil **CORRECTION - Of the 3 million refugees admitted to US - there was 1 refugee who committed knife/car attack in 2016.
9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian and Egyptian - countries not blocked
Refugees go through more than 2 year process of uation that is amongst the most strict on the planet…and these are people fleeing the worst situations imaginable where every day counts
Most importantly - there is a simple issue of compassion. People are not leaving their homes due to boredom…they are fleeing for their lives. He made this announcement on the Same day as the holocaust rememberance. Many Jews (and people of goodwill) remember that a number of Jewish children (and adults) who landed in the US were sent BACK to Nazi germany where they were murdered……. ..Yes - many people have a problem of sending women, children and innocents who have fled for their lives back into the hells they ran away from.
If item 5 has no impact - just imagine if it was you….if something went terrible wrong; that you and your loved ones - your children / grandparents…. the infirm were running for your lives and to a place that has always been about hope. Imagine that armed men stop you from entering a place of peace and hope and send you back to almost certain death.
PS. The beginning of the poem from the status of liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these…”
Those words made America Great - Trumps Actions do not
Edit: Spelling, grammar and for clarity (in parentheses)

1、美国是个移民国家
  a)清教徒本身就是宗教难民。
  b)埃利斯岛的德国与犹太难民是经济或宗教难民
c)爱尔兰后裔的主体是来自矿山的难民
  d)非裔美国人--不是难民，是通过暴力买过来的。
2、在美国承认的300万难民中，没有一个人发动过恐怖袭击，2016年只有一个承认为一起刀/汽车袭击负责。
3、9/11袭击是沙特人合埃及人干的---而这俩国家没有被封。
4、难民需要走超过2年的程序，这是这个星球上最严苛的程序，二这些人可能正在逃离最糟糕的情形，分秒必争。
5、最重要的--一个很简单的问题：同情心。人们并不是由于厌倦了生活才离开家的。。他们是在逃离生活。而川普在大屠杀纪念日的同一天做了这样的声明。许多犹太人（心怀好意的人）想起许多犹太儿童（以及成年人）被遣返到屠杀他们的纳粹德国。。。是的--许多人对于重回地狱有点难处。
6、如果第五条不影响--将心比心，如果是你自己呢。。。你所爱的人--你的孩子/你体弱多病的父母为了生活奔波到一个充满希望的地方--想象一下，全副武装的人阻止你进入一个和平希望之地，而将你送回一处几乎必死的境地。

PS.来自自由女神像一首诗的开头：“把疲惫交给我，把贫穷交给我，混乱的你需要自由的空气”
正是这些话是美国变得伟大--而不是川普的话

Layla Ehteshami, political science student at GWU
Written Jan 29
No, no, no, no!!!!!
The real issue here to Americans is not that refugees will be banned or that Muslim immigrants will be banned, the real issue perpetuated by this order is Islamophobia.
It’s not a Muslim ban, the argument goes, because it blocks people of all religions — as long as they’re a refugee or from one of the seven countries.
But it’s not so simple.
If you take a close look at Trump’s executive order, you see that it contains a major loophole — an exemption from its ban on refugee entry to the United States for “religious minorities” being persecuted by their governments. Who’s going to qualify for these exemptions? A lot of Christians — according to Trump himself. Here’s what he said in a Friday interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody:
BRODY: Persecuted Christians, we’ve talked about this, the refugees overseas. The refugee program, or the refugee changes you’re looking to make. As it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?
TRUMP: Yes.
BRODY: You do?
TRUMP: They’ve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.
I’m afraid there’s only one real reason for enacting policies that disproportionately block Muslims from entering the United States: bigotry. It’s bigoted because it disproportionately affects Muslims, not because it affects every Muslim.
Trump and some Republicans say that this ban will protect Americans, and the United States.
Since 9/11, home-grown white supremacists and similar extremists have killed more Americans in the US than all Islamic extremists, American or non-American, put together. It seems that, if your goal is saving lives and stopping extremism, it makes more sense to look at home than singling out a group of immigrants who come, disproportionately, from one religious group.
Trump and some Republicans say that this ban will reduce terrorism in the United States.
No perpetrator of a major terrorist attack in the United States comes from a country on Trump’s list. And even if you include the death toll from 9/11, the overall threat level from immigrants is really low. A recent study from the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh found that an American’s odds of being killed by an immigrant terrorist of any faith are one in 3.6 million. The odds of being killed by a refugee specifically are even higher: One in 3.6 billion.
And if the justification were actually security, then Trump’s “religious persecution” exemption wouldn’t make any sense at all. There is no way for the US government to tell if, say, a Syrian refugee is actually a Christian — it’s not the kind of thing you can prove easily. The Syrian ISIS operatives that Trump is so concerned about could simply say there were Christian — and who’s to say they’re wrong?
TLDR: So no, it is not the right choice. It does not provide security, it gives the United States a hostile image (contrary to the image it has had the past 238 years) and causes severe inner strife by perpetuating bigotry.

不不！！！
对于美国来说真正的问题并不是禁止难民或者禁止穆斯林，真正的问题是伊斯兰恐惧症
并不是由于穆斯林禁令才产生争议的，而是由于川普禁止了所有地区---只要是这七个地区的难民都被禁止进入。
但问题并没有那么简单。
如果你仔细观察川普的政令，
里面存在一个主要的漏洞---被政府迫害的“宗教少数派”是被排除在外的。谁拥有这些“例外”的资格？那就是基督教徒---川普自己说的，本周五基督教广播网的David Brody采访他的时候他说的：
    Brody：你提到过，海外遭受迫害的基督教徒。难民法案、或者说你的想要改变的难民条例，牵涉到被迫害的基督教徒，那是否意味这你将他们视为优先群体？
    川普：是的。
    Brody：真的么？
    川普：他们饱受煎熬，你知道么在叙利亚如果你是个基督徒，你几乎不可能进入美国，至少会很艰难？如果你是穆斯林你就能来，但如果你是个基督徒，那几乎不可能，而原因非常的不公平。平心而论，所有人都在被迫害，但是他们砍了更多基督徒的头。我觉得这非常非常的不公平，所以我们要帮助他们。
恐怕川普出台这样的政策，不成比例的禁止穆斯林进入美国直邮一个原因那就是：偏执。因为它不成比例的影响到穆斯林，但又不是每一个穆斯林都受到影响。
川普与一些共和党员说该项禁令能保护美国和美国人。
自9/11起，本土的白人至上主义者以及一些类似的极端主义者杀掉的美国人，比所有的伊斯兰极端主义者杀掉的还多。看起来，如果你们的目标是拯救生命与阻止极端主义，那么看好自己家里（指白人之上主义等极端组织）比禁止这些区域的移民来的更有意义。
川普和一些共和党员说，这项禁令可以减少美国的恐怖分子。
而美国国内的主要的恐怖袭击作案人没有一个来自这个名单的任何一个国家。即便算上9/11的伤亡人数，总体来说，移民带来的威胁微乎其微。最近 卡托研究所的 Alex Nowrasteh的一项研究发现，美国人被任何宗教的恐怖分子移民杀掉的几率是1/3600000，被特定的宗教移民杀掉的就更低了，只有1/3600000000。
如果理由只是为了安全，那么川普所谓的“宗教迫害”的例外一点意义也没有。美国政府无法分辨一个叙利亚难民是不是基督徒---这不是你能轻易证明的事情。ISIS人员只要说他们就是基督教徒---谁又能说他们是错的呢？
TLDR：不，这不是个好选择，这并不能保证安全，这给美国带来了一种敌视他国的印象（与过去238年的印象相反），可能会导致内部冲突。

Lydia Koza, I live in the USWritten Jan 30
By all accounts, no.
Blocking migration to and from the US from those seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia)[1] was a cheap way of satisfying the growing, misguided public fear and anger among Trump’s supporters directed toward Muslims - anger that Trump himself fed upon and built up as part of his campaign.
It was not, however, a move that was at all in accordance with the US’s body of law, or with our past commitments. Notably, it entirely ignores the fact that many with green cards from these countries are already in the country, have already put down roots, etc. - his order will be breaking up families and uprooting people from their jobs and communities, for nothing but to quell fears that he himself stirred up.[2]
Not to mention that Trump omitted five of the key countries to which he has business ties: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Azerbaijan.[3] It wasn’t even ever going to be that effective at addressing the countries of origin of actual terrorists in that, to point out a key example, none of the countries listed were the countries of origin of the 9/11 hijackers - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon.[4] [5] [6]
So, no, I can’t see a way by which this could possibly be considered the right thing.
EDIT: See also this statement made by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) about this executive order.
EDIT 2: At least one Quoran has expressed the opinion that blocking refugees from these seven countries is because these countries are where ISIS is actively a faction in a civil war, and that this makes refugees a security risk.
If that’s the justification, then in blocking refugees, Trump has done nothing but deliver the would-be refugees right into the hands of ISIS and other terrorist organizations.
The refugees are desperate people whose options are few, and helping them would be the single best thing to do to reverse negative world perceptions of the US and lessen the power of the recruiting messages of terrorist organizations. Not to mention that it’s possible that the refugees may have local information that they might be willing to give the US military and/or NATO if given asylum.
On the other hand, refusing makes the US look unwilling to see reason and increases the level of local fear and anger in those countries - i.e., increases the likelihood that people will be sufficiently angry to attempt terrorist attacks against the US.
That, and how the US carried out the order alienated people who would already have solidly considered themselves on the side of America, and forced those people outside of the country while all of that transpired. (To be clear, I don’t think any such people are a threat; but if they were, this would be the fastest possible way to radicalize them.)
In sum, this order was counterproductive in the highest. I would go so far as to say that this and Trump’s other anti-Muslim rhetoric are the biggest favor that Trump could possibly have given ISIS.
Footnotes
[1]Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties
[2]Log In - New York Times
[3]Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties
[4]Hijackers in the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia
[5]How Many Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. Have Been Carried Out by Immigrants from the 7 Banned Muslim Countries?
[6]Democratic lawmaker says no terrorist attack since 9/11 from

人人都说,NO.
禁止这几个国家的移民（叙利亚，伊拉克，伊朗，利比亚，苏丹，也门，索马里）是一种廉价的方案，仅仅是为了满足川普支持者，他们愈发增长、被误导的对穆斯林恐惧心理。是川普用来竞选的一种筹码。
但是，这种行为，一点也不符合美国的主体法律，或者说不符合过去做过的承诺。尤其是它完全忽视了一个事实，很多这些国家的人已经拿到绿卡并且已经在美国了，而且已经落地生根。这项禁令会将这些家庭搞得支离破碎，将他们从工作合社区里连根拔起。而这仅仅是为了平息川普自己内心产生的恐惧。
更别说川普还遗漏了跟他的生意有所牵扯的5个国家，比如埃及，沙特，阿联酋，土耳其，和阿塞拜疆。这根本不会对那些真正存在恐怖分子的产油国产生有效影响。最关键，这7国，没有一个是是9/11袭击恐怖分子的来源国----埃及，沙特，阿联酋，黎巴嫩。
所以，NO，我绝不认为这是一项正确的举措。
EDIT：请看这项声明this statement，参议员John McCain (R-AZ) 和Lindsey Graham (R-SC)关于这项禁令的声明。
EDIT2：至少有一个 Quoran发表了这个观点：由于ISIS问题被禁的7个国家，它们的难民被置于极度危险之中。
如果这叫公平，那么禁止难民这件事，川普什么也没做，他只是把难民交到ISIS或者其他恐怖组织手里。
难民是绝望的群体，它们几乎没什么选择。帮助他们有助于扭转世界对美国消极认知，减少恐怖组织招募成员。更别说这些难民可能有些小道消息提供给美军或者北约，他们可能还会愿意为你们的军队提供庇护所。
另一方面，这项禁令让美国看起来不愿意看到原因，增加了这些国家的恐惧和愤怒。也就是说，增加了那里的人民由于愤怒而参加ISIS从而对抗美国的可能性。
美国实行的这个措施，疏远了本来坚定的站在美国一边的人们，这逼得他们蒸发了这些观念。（说实话，我不认为这些人是被威胁的，但如果是，这个禁令可能是使他们激进化的最快方法）。
总而言之，这项禁令的负面效果是最高的。我甚至敢说，川普和其他一些反穆斯林团体的这套说辞将会是ISIS最喜欢的礼物。



附注：
[1]Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties
[2]Log In - New York Times
[3]Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties
[4]Hijackers in the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia
[5]How Many Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. Have Been Carried Out by Immigrants from the 7 Banned Muslim Countries?
[6]Democratic lawmaker says no terrorist attack since 9/11 from
Anonymous
Updated Feb 2
Here are some concerns. They should really be banning stupid people who mindlessly follow News-drivel group-mind-speak.
Facts
Not all Muslims, nor all Muslim from Arab countries have been marginalized in the ban. Muslims (or anyone)from Saudi Arabia, for instance, a noted two-face in the battle against ISIS still have full rights to travel and immigrate, and in total, more Muslims are permitted access than the number of those banned, so how can this be a religious thing?
Other primarily Muslim countries not banned from sending immigrants:
Yemen
UAE
Quatar
Jordan
Lebanon
Oman
Egypt
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Malaysia
and the single country with the most Muslims on earth…Indonesia, 300M+
Two groups of countries have been delineated, first group: Libya Sudan Somalia Yemen, all are militant states harboring terrorists, labelled as such by the Obama intelligence machine, all who contain ISIS rebels, militants who have vowed to use the refugee sympathy of the West to plant sleeper cells in Western North American and European countries. and have successfully done so already!!
eg. Islamic State (ISIS) jihadists are shaving their beards to blend in with North African and Middle East refugees flooding into Europe by boat
All 4 have refused to cooperate with US in helping to screen refugees or provide info on terrorist groups contained within their borders.
Of the remaining three, two are a disorganized mess, Syria and Iraq with ISIS strongholds within their borders, and the third, Iran, helps fund anti-Western terror, and some even suspect involvement with ISIS[1] .
The choice of these 7 is based on labelling of the worst offenders made by the Obama Administration prior to Trump taking office.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/wo...
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/isis-...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...
http://www.reuters.com/article/u...
http://thefederalistpapers.org/u...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/wo...
http://shoebat.com/2015/05/18/is...
Ask yourself why these myths are being propagated.
Addendum: In all fairness to opponents, I don’t necessarily support this. I think it is an example of lack of experience in government processes ( like giving everyone involved a heads-up and debating it behind the scenes with opponents in search of a reasonable compromise) meets insufficient research of the problem and all possible other solutions. Instead DT drew about the biggest political “line in the sand” I have ever seen during my own lifetime.
The essence of what I have really tried to address here, and in other places on QUORA too, is that there are scores of valid, supportable arguments that are compelling enough to cite, that would have a shot at convincing an on-the-fence Trump supporter without playing an unbecoming and mindless racism/xenophobia card that only enrages a would-be Trump-defector. Name-calling and other forms of ad hominem attack only make the attacker and their allies feel good. Rarely does this change people’s minds.
Footnotes
[1]Iran Is More Deeply Tied to ISIS Than You Think

有些担忧，他们应该缝上那些新闻媒体--社团喉舌跟风狗的嘴
几个事实
1、并不是所有穆斯林或者所有阿拉伯地区的穆斯林都被禁止。比如沙特的穆斯林（或者任何人）就完全可以移民或者旅行，沙特是打击ISIS战斗中种最着名的两面三刀派，相比被禁的穆斯林，更多的是被允许的，所以这如何能扯到宗教上去？
    a).其他主要的穆斯林国家没有被禁
    i.也门
    ii.阿联酋
    iii.卡塔尔
    iv.约旦
    v.黎巴嫩
    vi.阿曼
    vii.埃及
    viii.巴基斯坦
    ix.阿富汗
    x.马来西亚
    xi.还有就是拥有最多穆斯林的国家。。印尼。
2、圈定了两类国家，第一类：利比亚，苏丹，索马里，也门，都是好战国家，还有恐怖分子，这是被奥巴马的情报机构贴上的标签。其中包含了伊斯兰反叛分子，好战分子，他们已经发誓利用（西方国家的）难民同情心在北美和欧洲国家安排潜伏杀手。而且已经成功地干了几票了。
   a,一个列子，Islamic State (ISIS) jihadists are shaving their beards to blend in with North African and Middle East refugees flooding into Europe by boat（ISIS圣战者刮了胡子混在北非合中东难民中乘船前往欧洲）
   ·这四个国家拒绝与美国合作掩护难民，或者拒绝提供隐藏在他们国内的恐怖团体的情报。
   ·至于其他三个国家，两个是毫无组织的一团糟，叙利亚与伊拉克境内的ISIS占据了一些要塞，第三个，伊朗，则是帮助培植反西方恐怖分子，有些甚至被怀疑与ISIS有牵连。
   ·对这七个国家的禁令，是基于奥巴马政府情报机构贴的标签，作为川普政府接手的优先考虑。
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/wo...
    http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/isis-...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...
    http://www.reuters.com/article/u...
    http://thefederalistpapers.org/u...
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/wo...
    http://shoebat.com/2015/05/18/is...
    ·问问你自己，为什么这些谬论会被传播。
    ·附录：平心而论，我并不支持这项禁令。我觉得这是从政经验不够的表现（可能是给牵涉其中的每一个人一个机会，在公众视野之外讨论完，然后找到了一个合理的妥协），缺乏对问题的研究，没能找到其他的解决办法，取而代之的，是直接在沙地上画了一道政治界限，这是我这辈子从未见过的事情。
    ·我想要在此列出的，或者在QUORA其他版块想表达的是，有许多有用的、可以支持的留言足够引人注目，可以被引用来证明：打出不恰当的、愚蠢的种族主义/仇外牌并没有任何说服力，恶意中伤和其他形式的人身攻击只能让攻击者和他们的伙伴们感觉舒服一点，并不能改变人们的思想。
附注：[1]Iran Is More Deeply Tied to ISIS Than You Think（伊朗比你相像中与ISIS的瓜葛更深）

Peter Flom, BA in political science. Avid follower of US politics.
Written Jan 30
He didn’t block countries where he has substantial business interests, including Saudi Arabia.
He explicitly mentioned Christians as refugees who were OK.
Blocking refugees is what we did when the Jews were trying to escape the Holocaust.

他没有禁那些与他有生意来往的国家，包括沙特。
他明确提到基督徒难民是OK的。
禁止难民正像当年我们对犹太人做的那样，那时候犹太人在逃离大屠杀

Lawrence Black, Well to the "right" of the average RepublicanWritten Jan 30
I scrolled through most of the answers and found no mention at all of the Constitutional and legal support for Trump's recent action, other than somewhat shrill denials that “He's violating the Constitution!” (which he's provably not) and “A Muslim ban is illegal!” (it's also not a ban, and wouldn't be “illegal” if it was).
First, the U.S. Constitution in Article I grants authority over Immigration and Naturalization to Congress and tasks them with developing a controlled process of allowing entrance to other people wishing to reside here and become American citizens. Congress responded with the Immigration and Naturalization Act and 8 U.S. Code sub-section 1182 (f), which gives the President sole, unilateral authority to limit, ban or put conditions on entry of immigrants, or classes of immigrants, that he deems detrimental to the country, for such a period of time as shall be deemed necessary at his discretion.
Keep in mind, this power has been used before, by Democrat Presidents, with none of the outcry we see today: FDR used this power to force the internment of Japanese-American citizens (certified Constitutional by SCOTUS) in WWII, Pres Carter not only banned immigrants from Iran, he deported Iranians already living in the US, Pres Obama temporarily banned immigrants and refugees from Iraq in 2011. Pres Obama also put these same 7 countries on a list for restrictions and extra scrutiny in 2015 & 2016.
President Trump is doing what he believes is right and necessary for the safety and security of America and her citizens. Whether you approve or agree, he has the authority to do what he is doing.

通读所有答案，我发现没有一个人提到川普的举措是否有宪法或者有法律的支持，除了那些尖叫着“川普在违反宪法”的呼声（可能他并没有呢？），还有就是说“禁止穆斯林”是违法的（这并不是一项禁令，如果是禁令也不会“违法”）。
首先，美国宪法第一条赋予了国会一项权利，那就是可以针对移民或者归化、定居美国成为美国公民采取控制措施。根据移民与国籍法XX章xxx小节，单独给予了总统一项权利，总统有权禁止或者添加条款来控制移民、或者说看起来似乎对国家有害的移民团体 ，非常时刻用非常方法，他的考量是有必要的。
记住，这项权力在以前就有人用过，比如民主党总统，而那时候并没有像今天一样的反对声：二战时期，罗斯福就用这项权力来收容日裔美国人（后来证实，最高法院宪法承认的）。卡特总统不仅禁止了伊朗移民，他还将已经在境内居住的伊朗人驱逐出境，奥巴马总统在2011曾临时禁止伊拉克移民。2016年，奥巴马也把这7个国家列入限制入境和附加审查的名单。
川普做了他认为有必要和对的事，为了美国和国民的安全。不管你同不同意，他有权这么做。

Alfred Montestruc, works at Offshore - Oil & Gas Career
Written Feb 1
It is not a cost effective policy is the main issue.
No one from any of those 7 nations has committed a successful act of terror in the USA. These people are less than 1% of all people entering the USA.
The political and legal costs are high, as it ticks off a whole lot of people, and this will result in a court fight, that probably Trump will lose.
My take, this is a bad call. All he is doing is playing to his base, with ineffective BS policy decisions that only tick prople off and accomplish next to nothing in curbing terrorism.

这不是一个省钱的政策才是主要问题。
这7个国家里，没有人承认曾经在美国策划过任何恐怖活动，这些人只占进入美国人数中的不到1%。
政治和诉讼费用会很高，因为它变相地标记了许多人，而这会转变成诉讼战，而且川普可能会输官司。
我觉得这项举措不好，他所作的所有事情都是基于他自己，通过无效的宣传仅仅能愚弄人民，不能抑制恐怖分子