I fully understand that - and that's a good point.
However, it's not necessarily the logic on which the case should hinge.
Tunisia is the #1 source 'per capita' of ISIS/AlQueda memebers - but they won't be on any list. Why? Because their government works actively against terrorism, and really does help the US. When a Tunisian wants to enter the US, US customs can say "hey, is this a bad guy" and Tunisia will respond with something reasonably credible. Ditto for Saudi.
Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iraq (because of W. Iraq), can't do that today. Iran won't.
Moreover - the issue is not 'whether we should ban people from there or not' - the issue is 'how the press chose to present the facts'.
Fareed made a good case for why the ban is bad. (Which I agree with by the way!) But he didn't offer objective analysis. He was 'advocating'.
> When a Tunisian wants to enter the US, US customs can say "hey, is this a bad guy" and Tunisia will respond with something reasonably credible.
Is that actually the case? The attacker in the Breitscheidplatz truck attack in Berlin was Tunisian, and the German authorities made a pointed comment that the Tunisian government only issued the passport for his deportation the day after the attack. I wish I could find an exact citation for this (I saw it on live TV, presumably Deutsche Welle), in the meantime the closest I can find is this:
"Amri was an asylum-seeker whose application had been rejected by the authorities. He was granted a residence status in Germany referred to as "tolerated," meaning his deportation order had been temporarily suspended. This happened after an initial attempt to deport the man failed."
"Is that actually the case? The attacker in the Breitscheidplatz truck attack in Berlin was Tunisian"
First - there are 1 million migrants in Germany for which the government made no checks whatsoever.
Second - nobody is going to argue that a governments assessment is going to be entirely valid.
But it's helpful.
The notion of 'not allowing people in unless there is a background check' is very rational from a policy perspective.
Anyhow - it's besides the point regarding the press: that the countries listed were those for whom there can be no background checks is most of the rationale. The press largely failed to report this. Specifically in Fareeds presentation of the facts. Ergo - not doing his job.
The press, more than ever, needs to hold themselves to the most objective standards they can.
I agree about that, and I'm somewhat sorry I brought the point up as it was unrelated to the original link. Not sure why you were downvoted, but thank you for steering my comment back on topic.
Iraq just today sent their troops in the biggest offensive against ISIS in Mosul. Somalia and Sudan have been working extensively with the US on anti-terrorism efforts in their countries. Iran is backing 100K+ Sunnis who are fighting the largely Shiite ISIS.
And of course in Somalia and Yemen you are dealing with Al-Shabab who are unaffiliated with ISIS. Just like you have groups in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand who have their own Al-Qaeda offshoots.
What the US has stupidly done has been to tarnish those countries as state sponsors of terror when they have been working so hard to eliminate terorrism and really needed US and International support.
And no country right now including allies can adequately identify terrorists. Many terrorist acts have been committed by individuals without direct ties to ISIS or Al Qaeda i.e. rougue sympthasizers.
'No country right now including allies can adequately identify terrorists'. Correct and gets to the heart of the problem. In other words, people's intentions cannot be judged by the stance their government takes. In the absence of adequate identification, minimizing the chances of someone being maimed or killed is, for me at least, more important than the 'tarnishing' or not of a country. The question then comes down to estimates of the likelihood of this happening with incomers from country X bearing in mind that it's what is likely to happen in the future rather than in the past that counts. I have no data to hand on this so cannot comment. Maybe the estimate is very low in which case the anti-ban people are right. Otherwise?
