Because Saudi Arabia and Egypt have kept a lid on their populace by maintaining adequate internal security within their borders and providing valuable counter-terrorism intelligence to to the US, meanwhile the seven "countries of concern" have not.
Six of the seven countries are failed states and the other openly calls for the US' destruction.
To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of any of these blanket bans. But yes, that is a question that someone who is in favor of them would have to answer.
You mean the Saudi Arabia that was so complicit in 9/11 that Republicans in Congress passed a law saying private citizens could sue the government of Saudi Arabia for damages caused by 9/11?
That's your definition of "keeping a lid" and "maintaining internal security"?
Has the leadership in Saudi Arabia changed? Because it's not just "some Saudi guys" who did it. It was the government of Saudi Arabia. That's why Republicans said Americans are allowed to sue them.
> There is no reason to believe they are a current threat.
Saudi-Arabian nationals provide the ideological standing that IS leaders use, and Saudi-Arabian money financed the rise of IS. And I believe that there's a large number of SA-origin IS fighters, but can't remember where I read that, so take it with a grain of salt.
Six of the seven countries are failed states and the other openly calls for the US' destruction.