This is Why Trump is 'More Right Than Wrong' in US Immigration Policy

On Friday, United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order blocking all refugees coming to the country for 120 days, suspending entry for nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia for 90 days and barring all Syrian refugees from entering the country indefinitely.

The order, aiming to boost the country's security, has sparked controversy around the world and led to multiple protests in the US. Complains against the decision have been filed in several states, including Washington, California and New York. Former President Barack Obama has supported the protests, calling the ban "discriminating."

On Monday, President Trump fired US Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to enforce the decision.

Responding to criticism, Trump stressed that the restrictions were about the threat of terrorism and the need to keep the US safe.

'Separating the Fact From the Hysteria'

First of all, Trump’s migration order is a document really aimed at countering the threat of terrorism and bolstering national security, according to Anatoly Tsyganok, director of the Center for Military Forecast.

"Donald Trump and his administration do not want the European migrant situation to repeat in the US. If there is just one percent of terrorists among three-four million migrants this is a national security threat. They either wait for a signal from their leader or take act on their own, just like it has recently happened in Europe," Tsyganok told RIA Novosti.

According to the expert, Trump’s decision is "absolutely correct" because the "price is too high."

Tsyganok recalled that several years ago the Russian government realized that potential threats were arising from migrants and tightened entry rules.

"The hysterical rhetoric about President Trump’s executive order on refugees is out of control. Let’s slow down and take a look at the facts," American journalist David Fench wrote in a piece for National Review.

In a bid to "separate the fact from the hysteria," the journalist provided an explanation why the recently signed executive order is good and why its criticism is groundless.

First, the order restricts the number of refugees to the limits which were in effect 15 years ago, before Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions.

Trump’s executive order temporarily halts refugee admission for 120 days to review the vetting process. It also caps refugee admissions at 50,000 a year. For comparison, in 2002, the US admitted 27,000 refugees, and in 2013 – nearly 70,000.

"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," Fench wrote.

Second, the list of "countries of concern" includes countries either "torn apart by jihadists" or controlled by "hostile, jihadist governments." Taking into account the fact that many terrorists disguise as terrorist, the journalist regard the temporary halt as "wise."

Third, the ban on admission of Syrian refugees to the US is in fact a return to the Obama administration’s practices from 2011 to 2014, when Washington admitted only several dozens of Syrian refugees a year. In 2015, the number spiked and the US admitted over 1,500 refugees from Syria.

Furthermore, Fence wrote that prioritizing refugee claims from representatives of religious minorities is also good because in different countries there are different minority religions, including Christians, Muslims or Yazidis.

"Finally, you can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban. It’s not there. Nowhere," the journalist concluded.

US Immigration System is 'Broken'

The order on migration restrictions is far from being perfect but until all problems in the US immigration system are solved President Trump is "more right than wrong," Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest, wrote in a piece for the American Conservative.

Among the flaws of the US refugees vetting system, the author criticized the poorly-thought out list of "countries of concern." According to Giraldi, such countries as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan should be first on the list.

All of the above is "not intended to suggest that the executive order is completely wrong-headed. The countries in question, with the exception of Sudan and Iran (included because they are, for reasons that basically make no sense, labeled state sponsors of terrorism), do indeed have major radicalization problems, as described in the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism. It is quite sensible to block travel by citizens of those countries until one can establish procedures to make sure that militants are not being admitted to the US," the article read.

According to the author, currently US embassies overseas have limited ability to vet visitors or immigrants. The Obama administration has stressed that the US has very strict vetting processes for would-be refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants and tourists, but "it has failed to provide any details of how the system actually works."

"Until a broken immigration system is fixed, he is more right than wrong," Giraldi wrote.

 

Never miss a story again — sign up to our Telegram channel and we'll keep you up to speed!