To read the online commentary, one would think that President Trump just fundamentally corrupted the American character. You would think that the executive order on refugees he signed yesterday betrayed America’s Founding ideals. You might even think he banned people from an entire faith from American shores.
Just look at the rhetoric. Here’s Chuck Schumer:
Chuck Schumer of Trump's 'extreme vetting' Exec. Order: "Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight." pic.twitter.com/ONz3Ss6BJ5
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 28, 2017
If you thought only Senator Schumer saw tears in Lady Liberty’s eyes, think again. Here’s Nancy Pelosi:
Pelosi blasts Trump's 'extreme vetting' Exec. Order: "This Administration has mistaken cruelty for strength and prejudice for strategy." pic.twitter.com/LNBnDTNvGe
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 28, 2017
CNN, doing its best Huffington Post impersonation, ran a headline declaring “Trump bans 134,000,000 from the U.S.” The Huffington Post, outdoing itself, just put the Statue of Liberty upside down on its front page.
So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones.
Let’s analyze the key provisions, separate the fact from the hysteria, and introduce just a bit of historical perspective.
First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms. The chart below, from the Migration Policy Institute, is instructive:
In 2002, the United States admitted only 27,131 refugees. It admitted fewer than 50,000 in 2003, 2006, and 2007. As for President Obama, he was slightly more generous than President Bush, but his refugee cap from 2013 to 2015 was a mere 70,000, and in 2011 and 2012 he admitted barely more than 50,000 refugees himself.
The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016. Obama’s expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump’s contraction.
Second, the order imposes a temporary, 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. These are countries either torn apart by jihadist violence or under the control of hostile, jihadist governments.
The ban is in place while the Department of Homeland Security determines the “information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.” It could, however, be extended or expanded depending on whether countries are capable of providing the requested information.
The ban, however, contains an important exception: “Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.” In other words, the secretaries can make exceptions — a provision that would, one hopes, fully allow interpreters and other proven allies to enter the U.S. during the 90-day period.
To the extent this ban applies to new immigrant and non-immigrant entry, this temporary halt (with exceptions) is wise. We know that terrorists are trying to infiltrate the ranks of refugees and other visitors. We know that immigrants from Somalia, for example, have launched jihadist attacks here at home and have sought to leave the U.S. to join ISIS.
Sadly, this is what cleaning up an 8 year mess looks like.
Muslims that helped us in the war on terror are being denied entry. You mean, like THIS?
@Bill… Deplorable Me: Wonder what that said. You have to be a WaPo subscriber to read it. I sure wouldn’t give them a dime to support liberalism.
Anyhow could you sum up the story on the interpreter?
@Bill… Deplorable Me: #1
“Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.”
Says so right in the above article. The problem is?
They’ve been denied entry for over eight years, but only now it’s an outrage?
As I understand the Judge order today: Those with valid visas may remain. Solution: revoke Visa.
Allow them into the country but don’t allow them to go anywhere until they decide to self deport.
This is not brain science. Europe has shown the way when they indiscriminately allow anyone entry without proper vetting. The list of acts of terrorism and violence perpertrated by these troglodytes is well documented. If the likes of zuckerberg, et al. want to allow these heathens into our country, let them sponsor them and be responsible for any and all actions while here.
My presumption is they would opt out….
Heck, I’m damn sure not a subscriber. I dropped my subscription to the Dallas Morning News after 42 years.
There was also this:
Under Obama, if you HELPED the US, you had to get to the back of the line. If you pose a threat, COME ON IN!!!
This is from US Code 1182, Inadmissible Aliens (emphasis mine):
So, I would say that any immigrant that believes in the imposition of Sharia Law should not be allowed entrance.
In fact, any immigrant that believes they do not have to follow US immigration law is excluded, per this line.