[thisnotmyacc]

> present the following frame

That's not what the order states, and I SEVERELY doubt you have read it.

http://on.wsj.com/2kGbSdj so we are all on the same page here. There is literally one country mentioned in the document - that country is Syria. The other references are to other documents that group countries that I can't find.

I think if you read the executive order, you'll have much better framing for what it actually says, and why.

[marcell]

Framing is not just the executive order, but also the narrative around it, and the manner in which it's presented to Americans. That's why the comments Trump made on the campaign trail are important.

The narrative is that America is under siege, and that we are in grave danger of terrorist attack. The only way to stop is to take extreme executive action, and to frame our national security policy around fighting ISIS.

Consider, as an example, the hasty nature of this executive order. It went into effect immediately, and refugees previously approved for entry had that approval revoked. Was there really something so urgent that happened on Thurs Jan 23rd that required immediate action? This is a similar strategy used by the Bush Administration, where the government uses the spectre of terrorism to justify actions completely disproportionate to the threat.

The question I would ask apologists of the travel ban is this: what was the real, imminent threat that required such a hasty executive order to be made on Jan 23rd? Is it a real threat, or is it political theatre for another purpose?