On Trump’s ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants and refugees
There is much to be said for keeping promises, and it has become the habit of American politicians to include their constituents in the farce that has become the campaign system. But I will say this for Donald Trump: he’s no run of the mill politician. Not for him the I-pretend-to-tell-the-truth-you-pretend-to-believe-me routine.
This, generally speaking, is good. Honesty is to be preferred. However, there is a genuine gulf between the burdens of opposition and leadership. Opposition is fun, and largely without responsibility. Leadership only sounds fun, and carries abounding burdens, among them the inchoate demands of “American leadership” and the rather specific requirements of interagency coordination. Unfortunately, President Trump is falling down on both, viz. this weekend’s tempest over his immigration executive order.
Beginning with the good, it seems only right that a man who pledged to keep terrorists out of the homeland should act to do so. And there should be little argument that there are plenty of terrorists in the seven countries designated by Trump as requiring special scrutiny. These seven countries were designated by the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to US law as being “countries of concern” under the Obama administration.
Ditto the notion that those who have come from these countries, traveled to these countries, or even traveled through these countries should be subjected to particular scrutiny. There is no entitlement to enter the United States for non-Americans. All of this is reasonable, and defensible, even if we don’t necessarily agree with every detail. Similarly, candidate Trump pledged to end refugee admissions until he could be certain that the vetting procedures were “extreme” enough to sort the terrorists from the downtrodden seeking refuge. As we know, the facts don’t support his contention that refugees in America are the main source of terrorist threats. Still, vetting seems a fair notion when weighed against the reward of a life in America.
But, there are problems of both substance and process with Trump’s ban. First, it is not premised on actual facts. The countries that are the actual main sources of ISIS fighters are not on the Trump list (Tunisia and Saudi Arabia are #1 and 2; Russia is up there as well). Generally speaking, those who have committed terrorist attacks in the United States have not been refugees (though some have been born to asylees and immigrants). Second, barring individuals who originate from or travel to only these seven countries hardly protects us from the remaining world of European, Australian, Russian and other Arab national terrorists. Third, issuing what can only be described — generously — as a half-baked, quickly-drafted, not-scrubbed, not run through the interagency, not well-considered executive order makes the executive himself look like an ass, and his policies look capricious.
Hence the myriad of problems since the issuance of the order at US airports, as well as the back and forth on the legality of denying green-card holders their adjudicated rights, the airlines’ confusion, the contradictory interpretations issued by different agencies and worse. Trump and co. may congratulate themselves that the uproar caused by the order is simply the outrage of the Left and of its lackeys in the media, but that is manifestly untrue.
Finally, there is the moral case. There is a clear and, to my mind, entirely persuasive moral argument both for America as a refuge for those fleeing terror and America as a home for those seeking a better life. We have done precious little both abroad to try to stem the refugee flow, and at home in accepting enough refugees. But the arguments of opponents to this order are in too many cases doing more harm than good. They at once insist vetting is already extreme (San Bernardino suggests otherwise); that terrorists will not try to seek admittance (they have); that the United States has always been generous to immigrants (an obvious lie); that Obama was better (he who was more pleased to allow all Syrians to die at home; who banned refugees from Iraq for six months over concern about procedures); that it is wrong to favor persecuted minorities (why?) and more. It is better to fight with, ahem, true fact. It is better for those who were brave enough to stand up to Obama to be the ones standing up on this issue, because I’m not sure Rosie O’Donnell knows where Syria is, and I’m pretty sure Kal Penn was an apologist for Obama’s pathetic abdication of responsibility in Syria and Iraq. In other words, if your sole credential on this issue is hating Trump, perhaps best to shut up. You’re not helping Syrians; you’re just grandstanding for your own selfish pleasure.
We can all hope that when the work week rolls around, the Departments of State and Homeland Security and others sit down and try to figure out what’s right, what’s wrong, and what the rules are, and most importantly, how to streamline rapid processing of the many exceptions there must be to this blanket ban. Like Trump or hate him, agree or not, we have at the very least the right to expect competence.
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author.
First published on January 29, 2017 on AEIdeas.org.
