78

This image states that:

Trump is poised to sign an Executive Order banning entry to the United States from These 7 Muslim contries:

Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia

Conspicious in their absence, are the 3 Muslim countries with which Trump does business:

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey

Saudi Arabia was home for 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Saudis aren't banned from entering the US but war-weary Syrians are.

enter image description here

Are the claims from this image accurate?

dsollen
  • 10,062
  • 12
  • 43
  • 71
  • 2
    Where is that image from? Did you try googling for the answer? – Reinstate Monica -- notmaynard Jan 29 '17 at 03:09
  • 6
    Multiple claims are being asked about. I suspect that makes it a poor fit for this site. – Andrew Grimm Jan 29 '17 at 03:57
  • 6
    How about we verify this link instead: https://www.facebook.com/TheOther98/photos/a.115969958413991.17486.114517875225866/1674514775892827/?type=3&theater – DJClayworth Jan 29 '17 at 04:04
  • 7
    related: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand – Sklivvz Jan 29 '17 at 10:22
  • 11
    I've seen that particular image from multiple unrelated sources **many times** over the course of the last 24 hours. As long as the point of this site is to provide fact-checking of notable claims for the internet community, this is **very on topic**. – Tomáš Zato Jan 30 '17 at 00:28
  • @AndreaLazzarotto half your comment was a joke about toddlers, the other half suggested a different claim we already tackled [here](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36962/comparing-american-soil-deaths-from-banned-versus-not-banned-countries) – Sklivvz Feb 01 '17 at 09:56

2 Answers2

135

Yes the facts are accurate, but the implication of causation is questionable.

President Trump did sign an executive order banning the citizens of Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia from entering the US for 90 days. Here is a CNN article that gives the details.

It's also true that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are not on the list.

The full text of the executive order can be seen here.

Since Trump has not released his taxes, it's hard to know exactly what his financial dealings are, but it does appear he has some financial interests in those 3 countries. For more details read this article by the New York Daily News.

From the article:

In Turkey:

Trump also currently licenses his name to two luxury towers in the Turkish metropolis of Istanbul. He received as much as $5 million from the deals last year, according to his latest financial disclosures. Furthermore, since the election, Trump’s development partner, Dogan Sirketler Grubu Holding, has seen its shares surge by nearly 11%.

In Egypt:

His [Trump's] latest Federal Election Commission filing lists two companies in the country, Trump Marks Egypt and Trump Marks Egypt LLC, both of which are most likely connected to a development venture.

In Saudi Arabia:

Trump registered eight companies tied to hotel interests in the country shortly after launching his campaign in August 2015, according to The Washington Post. The companies were registered under such names as THC Jeddah Hotel and DT Jeddah Technical Services...

Additional info on the SA companies from the WP:

Their names followed a pattern set by Trump companies connected to hotel deals in foreign cities: in this case, Jiddah, the second-biggest city in Saudi Arabia.

Four of those companies, in which Trump was named president or director, remained active at the time of Trump’s May financial filing. The disclosures do not provide more detail for the companies, and Trump representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

But we can't infer causation, as we have no way of knowing why he picked some countries but not others, without him stating the reason. That being in mind, it's important to mention that the list of 7 countries was originally drafted by the Obama administration:

In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however.

So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.

ventsyv
  • 7,136
  • 2
  • 27
  • 44
  • 40
    Some have noted that a 2015 law (Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015) requires people who have recently traveled to [those 7 countries](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program) to apply for a visa, rather than being eligible for entry without having obtained a visa in advance. (Of course, "these people have to apply for a visa who previously didn't" is an entirely different policy from "these people are denied entry, even if they have already applied for and received a visa") – ff524 Jan 29 '17 at 05:28
  • 1
    Can someone kindly add relevant excerpts from the links to give context and to prevent link rot? – Sklivvz Jan 29 '17 at 10:24
  • 20
    I've edited your post to make it a bit more neutral and include a relevant fact about who selected the original 7 countries. – JonathanReez Jan 29 '17 at 12:41
  • @Sklivvz does adding webarchive snapshots help prevent it? – beppe9000 Jan 29 '17 at 13:18
  • 21
    "The facts are accurate, but the conclusion is in question." isn't that basically politics in a nutshell? – corsiKa Jan 29 '17 at 19:09
  • 2
    Actually there is no conclusion in the original claim, so I don't know why the edit – ventsyv Jan 29 '17 at 19:14
  • 13
    It's worth noting that while 9/11 is referenced multiple times in the order, all of the countries the hijackers came from are excluded. This isn't an argument for expanding the order, rather cutting a leg out from a stated justification. It's also worth noting that Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are US allies (though so is Iraq). – Schwern Jan 29 '17 at 22:15
  • 2
    @JonathanReez Adding facts into answers is not what edits are for, we have answers and comments for that. – Tomáš Zato Jan 30 '17 at 00:25
  • 3
    @ventsyv "Conspicious in their absence" is a conclusion, it leads the reader to think there is foul play at hand – JonathanReez Jan 30 '17 at 08:01
  • 4
    @TomasZato I frequently see answers overhauled by edits. I think it's okay for Skeptics – JonathanReez Jan 30 '17 at 08:03
  • 6
    It's also worth nothing that not only those three are missing, but also Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Senegal, Niger, and so on, and so on. Most muslim countries aren't in the image either way. – RemcoGerlich Jan 30 '17 at 08:59
  • 1
    @Schwern: but Iraq's government only controls part of its area, so that counting it as an ally works only in part. – RemcoGerlich Jan 30 '17 at 09:02
  • 15
    Turkey is in NATO. It couldn't be in any such list, without serious damage to the USA-Turkey relationships. – ypercubeᵀᴹ Jan 30 '17 at 09:34
  • 1
    @RemcoGerlich I read Trumps executive order was for _7 Muslim majority_ countries. Are all these others not included you list also _Muslim majority_ or just _Muslim_ ? – KalleMP Jan 30 '17 at 10:26
  • 6
    @KalleMP: I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country . Indonesia has 87.2% muslim but had to be in there because it has the most muslims of any country, Jordan has only 93.8% but is close to the war zone, the rest are 95%+. There are more countries to choose from that are also 95%+. – RemcoGerlich Jan 30 '17 at 10:36
  • How would excluding Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have benefitted Trump? Let's say he does have financial interest in those countries. How will he gain? I'd think that no inference is possible unless this question is answered – Michael J. Jan 30 '17 at 18:51
  • 3
    @MichaelJ. - **excluding** those countries may not have benefited Trump, but **INCLUDING** them in the **ban** could be detrimental to any financial interests he does have if the governments and people in those countries refuse to do business with Trump owned businesses. – Hannover Fist Jan 30 '17 at 19:57
  • @Schwern The 9/11 event itself was perpetrated by mostly Saudi terrorists in September 2001. Trump's EO entered into force in January 2017, 15 years later. Saying that the EO's list of countries undermines its own justification presupposes that the sources of the threats currently facing the US haven't changed in the past 15 years. A very reasonable argument is that the sources did change, but that the desire to avoid another 3,000 lives lost has not. – Iwillnotexist Idonotexist Jan 31 '17 at 17:57
  • "it's important to mention that the list of 7 countries was originally drafted by the Obama administration". This should be at the top of the post. –  Jan 31 '17 at 22:03
21

The statements in the meme are generally correct, but there is no evidence to support the implication that those countries were excluded because of Trump's business interests.

The answer to the title question is, no, Trump didn't exclude those countries (nor did he or his administration explicitly include or exclude any other countries.)

The relevant section of the executive order signed by Trump (Section 3(c),) did not actually list any countries at all for the entry ban. Instead, it applied to a list of countries that has already existed under U.S. law for several years and was most recently updated a bit under a year ago by the Obama administration.


Section 3(c) reads (emphasis mine):

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

8 USC 1187(a)(12) defines countries whose nationals are explicitly excluded from the U.S. Visa Waiver Program due to terrorism-related concerns. Iraq and Syria are explicitly included in this list by law. The other countries on the list are designated by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security due to terrorism-related concerns in those countries.

The most recent update to this list of countries prior to Trump's executive order was issued by President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security on February 18, 2016, just under a year prior to Trump's executive order.

8 USC 1187(a)(12)(A) provides that the Secretary of State may designate to this list any country "the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism."

8 USC 1187(a)(12)(D) provides the authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to add countries (or areas) to this list:

(D) Countries or areas of concern

(i) In general

Not later than 60 days after December 18, 2015, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall determine whether the requirement under subparagraph (A) shall apply to any other country or area.

(ii) Criteria In making a determination under clause (i), the Secretary shall consider—

(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States;

(II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and

(III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.

(iii) Annual review

The Secretary shall conduct a review, on an annual basis, of any determination made under clause (i).


Regarding the meme's statement that "conspicuous in their absence are the 3 Muslim countries with which Trump does business":

While the meme doesn't explicitly define what it considers to be a "Muslim country," if we define "Muslim countries" to mean "majority-Muslim countries," according to Wikipedia's list of Islam by Country, there are approximately 52 such countries or territories, 45 of which are absent from Department of Homeland Security's list.

The three excluded countries listed in the meme are hardly alone among Muslim-majority in being absent from the list, nor is their absence particularly 'conspicuous.' There are a number of other Muslim-majority countries in which terrorism concerns are more widespread than in any of those three countries which are also absent from the list, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, for example.

reirab
  • 4,095
  • 20
  • 25
  • So in effect, he took the existing law and changed it from "more vetting from these countries" to "citizens of these countries are banned from traveling to the US." Is that a correct summary? – ChrisR Jan 30 '17 at 22:32
  • 2
    @ChrisR The ban was authorized under a separate law ([8 USC 1182(f)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#f)) which does indeed authorize outright entry bans. But, yes, the effect of Section 3(c) of the EO was to change the status of people 'from' the countries on the 1187(a)(12) list from simply not being eligible for entry under the Visa Waiver Program to not being eligible for entry at all. – reirab Jan 30 '17 at 22:39
  • 1
    This is the crucial distinction. Surprised it isn't the top answer, but oh well. – Wildcard Jan 31 '17 at 00:38
  • 8
    The Trump order used the existing list, but Trump *chose* to use that list, didn't he? Presumably the executive order could also have been written to apply to a different set of countries, had Trump seen fit to do so. So I don't think we can absolve him of all choice in the matter. – Nate Eldredge Jan 31 '17 at 00:40
  • @NateEldredge Trump would be ripped a new one whether or not he chose the existing list. Not saying I approve of this move of his but it is what it is. And as this was a list created by the previous president, we should give THAT president partial credit for the ban :P – NZKshatriya Jan 31 '17 at 02:07
  • 1
    This is not an answer because it does not address the claims. – ventsyv Jan 31 '17 at 02:38
  • 1
    @Wildcard The other answer already had over +90 and accepted before I wrote this one, however, since the other answer didn't really address the title question, I added chose to add this one. – reirab Jan 31 '17 at 03:46
  • 1
    @ventsyv Your answer addresses the individual claims in the meme, but doesn't really answer the title question, which is whether _Trump_ excluded those countries. Since, given that detail, the rest of it is kind of moot, I didn't really want to rehash everything you had already explained well enough in your answer. – reirab Jan 31 '17 at 03:48
  • 1
    @NateEldredge He did choose to use that list, but it would have been rather illogical to make yet another list when there's already a list that is part of existing U.S. law for the purpose of applying extra scrutiny based on terrorism concerns, which was the stated purpose of the EO. Not that the EO was really logical anyway, but if one were going to make such an EO, using the list that already ostensibly exists in established U.S. law for that reason seems the most logical, least controversial, and least open to bias option. – reirab Jan 31 '17 at 03:53
  • 2
    You are saying "[the memes'] implication that those countries were excluded because of Trump's business interests isn't [correct]." Just because he didn't alter an existing list that happened to not include countries he has business interests with does not mean that the absence of those countries did not factor in to his decision to use that list instead of attempting to create a new one. – Beofett Jan 31 '17 at 18:11
  • @Beofett Better? – reirab Jan 31 '17 at 19:59
  • @Beofett, you have hardly failed to avoid my reproof through your lack of demonstrated inability to state a sentence with that many contradictions while evading a failure to make sense. :) Congratulations. – Wildcard Feb 01 '17 at 09:40
  • 1
    @Wildcard your lack of an inability to fail to comprehend what I didn't leave unsaid without an absence of challenge seems to not be other than exclusively applicable to you :) – Beofett Feb 01 '17 at 10:31
  • @Beofett, :D Actually, I was congratulating you. My first draft had "congratulations" in place of "reproof" but then I realized I would have to remove "hardly" for it to have the intended meaning, and I opted to change "congratulations" instead and put it at the end also to be sure I was clear. But now I have no idea if I understood your last comment or not. Proving, I think, that too many negations just confuses everybody. :D – Wildcard Feb 01 '17 at 10:48