fbpx

Stumbling Out of the Blocks

There is much to criticize about President Trump’s executive order on immigration, particularly the slapdash way the Administration drafted the order and announced it to the agencies responsible for implementing it. The Administration apparently bypassed the normal interagency review process, which checks orders for legality and advises on possible consequences. No doubt the Administration calculated that it couldn’t trust Obama holdovers not to create obstacles—a calculation that seems to have been correct in some cases. But lawyers do help sometimes, and it’s wise to listen even to bureaucrats on occasion. The normal interagency review could have avoided much of the confusion at airports over the weekend, which benefited no one, and which created a sense of disorder which will not help the Administration in the future. It would have been much better for the Administration to wait until its new team was fully in place, including its Attorney General, before taking legal action bound to inflame many people.

And then there is President Trump’s divisive campaign rhetoric about a “Muslim ban,” and self-aggrandizing statements from his informal advisers, which taint good-faith efforts to deal with the refugee crisis that currently exists throughout the West. As a nation, we are going to have to figure out how to address this crisis without simply opening our borders to everyone or closing them to people who deserve our help. Inflammatory language only makes this task harder.

And yet, the unhinged reaction to the order also doesn’t help. Don’t believe the hashtags: the order does not ban Muslim immigration to the US or impose a religious test for admission. The language is quite technical, and there are complications I lack space to address here. But, basically, the order does two things. First, it places a temporary ban on the admission of refugees from anywhere in the world, for 120 days, while officials review our current procedures to determine whether further security measures are necessary. After this 120-day period, the government will resume admitting refugees, up to 50,000 this year, under whatever new procedures officials devise.

The government will also be authorized, after 120 days, to give priority to refugees who are religious minorities and subject to persecution in their home countries. In an interview, President Trump indicated that he had Christians in mind. But by its terms the order extends to other religious minorities as well. In other words, it could cover Yazidi refugees from Iraq and Ahmadi Muslim refugees from Pakistan. It is not a unique preference for Christians—an issue I will address more in a moment.

Second, the order imposes a temporary ban, for 90 days, on the admission of all immigrants, not just refugees, from seven Muslim-majority countries the Obama Administration designated as likely harbors for terrorists, including Iraq and Syria—again, while the government reviews our procedures to see if further security measures are necessary. Muslim immigrants from other countries are not affected. And, with respect to these countries, no exception for religious minorities exists, including for Christians. Christians from Iraq and Syria, for example, who face brutal repression in their home countries, will be denied admission to the US during the 90-day review period.

In short, the order is not as dramatic or sinister as opponents allege. It may be imprudent; some Mideast Christians worry that the order may make them even greater targets for Islamist groups. It may be counterproductive or otherwise inadvisable. But if one were looking for a blanket ban on Muslims or a unique preference for Christians, one wouldn’t find them in this order.

To be sure, the fact that Christians are among the most persecuted religious minorities in the world today—perhaps the most persecuted religious minority—makes it likely that many Christians eventually will qualify for refugee status under the order. Given the religious oppression they suffer, Christians may well benefit disproportionately. But that result would not be unfair. It would simply reflect sad realities in our world.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on February 01, 2017 at 12:45:58 pm

Professor Movsesian, Excellent and spot on!

read full comment
Image of Nancy D.
Nancy D.
on February 01, 2017 at 13:25:47 pm

Nope. You would make a lousy coach. You can't recognize a win, would totally demoralize your players, and turn any victory into a loss. You're like an Eeyore.

read full comment
Image of boxty
boxty
on February 01, 2017 at 14:31:06 pm

Agree, not a Ban of Muslims: 1 includes non-Muslims from the seven selected countries; 2-does not target other majority- Muslim countries;3-doe not target millions of Muslims in non-Muslim majority countries.

read full comment
Image of Ed stafford
Ed stafford
on February 02, 2017 at 03:44:18 am

I understand that there are people who want only to look at what they see as the bare facts. But arguments have nuance; it's very difficult to win a debate this way. Reminds me of atheists and their arguments against the existence of God. Anyway, what do you say to this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/is-president-trumps-immigration-order-a-muslim-ban/514989/

read full comment
Image of EbsFamily
EbsFamily
on February 02, 2017 at 11:09:42 am

[T]he order imposes a temporary ban, for 90 days, on the admission of all immigrants … from seven Muslim-majority countries…. [W]ith respect to these countries, no exception for religious minorities exists….

To clarify, the Administration will continue to honor the visas of people born in the suspect nations—provided that they have immigrated to Israel and no longer have a passport from any of the suspect nations. True, that’s not an explicit exception for religious minorities….

The government will also be authorized, after 120 days, to give priority to refugees who are religious minorities and subject to persecution in their home countries….

To be sure, the fact that Christians are among the most persecuted religious minorities in the world today—perhaps the most persecuted religious minority—makes it likely that many Christians eventually will qualify for refugee status under the order. Given the religious oppression they suffer, Christians may well benefit disproportionately. But that result would not be unfair. It would simply reflect sad realities in our world.

I support fairness. In triaging refugees, I would hope no nation would discriminate against a candidate on the basis of religion—including a Christian religion.

But is it appropriate to prioritize religious persecution over other kinds of persecution? The man who will be beheaded because of his ethnic group, the woman who will be raped because she’s a woman, the teenager who will be stoned to death for being gay, and the Christian who is denied the use of wine because alcohol is haram--I don’t put all these people in the same category. Why should an administration prioritize religious concerns—other than for domestic political reasons?

Let us forthrightly face the sad realities of life without passing them through religion-tinted glasses.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on February 02, 2017 at 11:25:35 am

Could it be that perhaps the nation of Israel does a credible and substantive vetting of refugees while other nations do not? Nah. Couldn't be that, now could it.

Why should an administration prioritize religious concerns—other than for domestic political reasons?

How about reasons established by law? How about reasons of practicality: Small religious minorities in a nation are small enough to be dealt with while all of the nation's women cannot. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Let us forthrightly face the sad realities of life without passing through them with glasses heavily tinted with the political propaganda of the left (or the right, for that matter).

read full comment
Image of Scott Amorian
Scott Amorian
on February 03, 2017 at 11:50:01 am

"other than for domestic political reasons? "

Why should one President screw up an entire nations health care system - other than for domestic political reasons?

Why should one President destroy the credibility of the nations law enforcement agencies - other than for domestic political reasons?

Why should one President exacerbate racial tensions - other than for domestic political reasons?

Why should one President destroy the integrity of the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice - other than for domestic political reasons?

Shall I go on?

Let's stay biblical here, OK: Let he (Democrats) who is without sin cast the first stone. Interesting, however, it appears that the Democrats have a surfeit of both stones and sins. They appear quite willing to deploy the former but refuse to recognize the latter.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.