Ever since Donald Trump signed his ban on seven Muslim countries, one of the main talking points that’s been used against him (which I’ve also brought up) is that there’s never been a citizen from any of the nations on his list who’ve carried out a deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
What many don’t get is — that’s the point.
This ban was the first step. It was nothing more than Trump laying the foundation for the actual goal of his administration: An all-out ban on all Muslims and a registry for those living here.
Last year when Trump first said he wanted to ban all Muslims, the biggest “issue” even some on his side had with it was the fact that it targets an entire religion. It was extremely generic and difficult to spin without saying, “This isn’t about protecting Americans, it’s about bigotry against Muslims.”
That’s why his Muslim ban isn’t a ban on Muslims, per se, it’s just a ban on people from seven nations — that all happen to be predominantly Muslim.
But they were “smart” to not include nations that have actually had citizens who have carried out attacks on American soil. I don’t mean smart in that I admire this by any means, I mean “smart” in that they know where they’re going with this.
Let me explain.
If the next Islamic terrorist attack in this country is committed by someone from a nation that isn’t on Trump’s initial list, then his administration gets to come out and say, See! Our ban is working! The person wasn’t from one of these seven nations.
Then — wait for it — they can add more countries to the list.
They’ll spin it by saying “the ban worked,” hence the reason why the attacker wasn’t from one of those nations (even though no one from those nations has ever carried out a deadly attack here anyway — his supporters won’t care), which they’re banking on helping them build support to expand their ban on even more predominantly Muslim nations.
See where this is going?
Even if there’s an attack carried out by someone on his ban list, they’ll simply use it as a call for a stricter ban and “extreme vetting.”
Then if there’s an attack carried out by someone who naturalized here from a country not on his list, they can push for two things:
- To expand their ban on Muslims.
- Push for a registry for Muslims in the country.
Not only will they then call for “more extreme vetting,” but then they’ll likely make the argument that the ban isn’t enough — we have to start tracking and monitoring Muslims who are here already.
And what’s the best way to “track and monitor” Muslims? That would be a registry.
While we’re all focused on this ban and how little sense it seems to make, we need to also spend more time looking at what it’s possibly setting the stage for.