The concern is natural because terrorists can infiltrate the United States and other countries through refugee programs. This has occurred in Europe. Trump’s intention to make the country safer is admirable
Many on the left have criticized the executive order as a ban on Muslims and there are headlines all over the internet claiming that it is, but there’s no evidence indicated that’s exactly what it is. Only one of the ten countries with the largest Muslim populations are on the list. None of the top five are on it. The widespread protests that have caused disruptions are airports are almost comical considering that the ban affects a small percentage of people globally and even less in the United States.
Data from the Pew Research Center can be calculated to show how many Muslims are actually banned. Almost 90 percent of Muslims do not have to deal with the executive order. The actual number of Muslims who have been prevented from coming to the United State is quite low, so calling the order a ban on all people of a religion is blatantly untrue. It only exists for national security purposes, not to block everyone of the Islamic faith.
An argument has been made that the countries which aren’t facing bans are those in which Trump has conducted business in the past. The seven countries on the list (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen). These countries were based on travel restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program from the Visa Waiver Improvement Program and Terrorist Travel Act of 2015. It was originally for Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria. An extension was made to Libya, Somalia, and Yemen on February 18, 2016.
These seven nations were already of concern for the Obama administration. It only makes sense that the Trump administration would want to enact such a ban on them. Countries that aren’t part of the ban don’t have as many problems with instability and thereby don’t have as many refugees.
There are areas of criticism as to how the Trump administration handled the process of implementing the executive order. It appears that many officials were caught off their guard. Spontaneity can lead to inefficiency. Those who have green cards or dual citizenship have already been through the process. I do not think it made sense to include them in the executive order. After a day, the White House explained that the executive order did not cover those groups.
In the future, I believe that the Trump administration needs to make it clear ahead of time what they plan to do when a new executive order is signed to ensure that problems that have arisen in the case of the refugee ban don’t happen again. I still think there would be outrage from many people, but it is imperative to prepare those who are going to be engaged in the duties of carrying out the executive order. Hopefully, the White House will understand this in the future.
Giving legal teams additional time to analyze the executive order before signing it could have ensured that there would be no need to take it to the courts. Nevertheless, I’m not sure that the battles in the courts will be completed by the time the ban ends. Legal battles can be long and stressful over topics like this.
As for the attorney general, her decision to not carry out Trump’s order could have only led to her firing. It is her responsibility to follow the orders of her president. The disloyalty on her part isn’t acceptable.
As a whole, the executive order is effective in defending American national security and creating a stronger screening process for refugees. It could have been executed more timely, but that moment has passed. At this moment, the Trump administration has to remain committed to the order and begin reforming the refugees' entry process. This was a promise the president made on the campaign trail and many of his biggest supporters are certainly pleased.
-John M. Graber, Jr.