One of the advantages of being an unpaid pundit is being able to say "I don't know" when confronted with a question. And when it comes to the policy changes President Trump announced recently concerning entering the country, "I don't know" is the proper answer.
One of the maps that I've seen is quite tendentious:
The implication is that Trump only bans people from countries where his organization doesn't do business. Lemme ask you a question -- if you were a businessman, would you be investing in any of those countries? Lemme ask you another question -- many of Trump's overseas business holdings are resorts and vacation properties. Are you, or anyone you know, planning to take a holiday in Sudan or Yemen? Thought so. Are there tourist attractions worth seeing in Egypt? I can think of a few. It's possible there are some in Yemen, or Libya, but can you name any without consulting Google? Here's a hint -- businesses do not invest in places where they aren't likely to make money. I have to assume the Khartoum Visitor's Bureau isn't a very good gig these days, although if you'd like to go, here are the details.
So does a ban on people entering the country from Yemen make sense? I don't know. How about Iraq? Depends on who it is. Same thing would go for most of these countries, which share one characteristic -- they are failed states. The exception is Iran, which has been sponsoring terrorists for nearly 40 years.
We need to have a conversation about these things, but shrieking at the airport isn't a conversation. I'd really like to understand the benefits of the anti-Trump position, along with how we would adequately serve additional refugee populations when the countries surrounding these states won't take the refugees, either. Help us understand the right approach. Or just keep shouting hey hey, ho ho, Donald Trump has got to go. That'll be easy enough to ignore.