Is Trump's Refugee/Immigration Executive Order a "Moslem Ban"? Unprecedented? Legal? Useful? Here Are Your Answers.

[Ubiquitous]

The chaos surrounding President Trump’s hastily-drafted and
prematurely-implemented executive order regarding refugees and
immigration from predominantly Muslim countries has led to the
promulgation of a bevy of half-truths and outright lies.

It’s time to clear them up.

First, read this primer on what’s actually in the executive order.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12895/8-things-you-need-know-about-trumps-executive-ben-shapiro

Now, there are truly four questions about this executive order.
First, is it actually a “Muslim ban,” as leftists in the media
claim? Second, is the executive order truly “unprecedented,” as we
keep hearing? Third, is it legal? Finally, is it useful?

No, It’s Not A “Muslim Ban.” Trump rightly stated today, “this is
not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not
about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”
Obviously, this policy isn’t a Muslim ban. If it were, there would
also be a ban on Muslims from the forty-odd other Muslim majority
countries, plus a ban on Muslims living in Europe and Canada. It
didn’t help Trump’s cause that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
appeared on national television and said that Trump wanted a “Muslim
ban” and asked Giuliani how to accomplish it legally, leading to the
current policy.

It’s Somewhat Unprecedented, But Not Entirely. There are two oft-
cited precedents here: President Obama’s six-month ban on Iraqi
refugees in 2011, and President Jimmy Carter’s 1980 ban on Iranian
visa-holders. Obama’s ban on refugees, as Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
points out, affected only refugees; Trump’s executive order affects
green card holders, visa holders, and refugees. Obama implemented
the policy quietly, while Trump did so openly. And it’s worth noting
that Obama’s policy did result in the death of at least one refugee
waiting to be processed. As far as Carter’s policy, Carter put a
moratorium on new Iranian visas, with an exception for humanitarian
purposes, and a cancellation of then-current Iranian-American visas.
The purpose of Carter’s policy was to leverage the Iranian
government to give up American hostages, not as a broad-based policy
meant to last indefinitely.

There’s A Case For Its Legality, But The Story Isn’t Entirely Clear.
There’s a fascinating legal debate going on between Andrew McCarthy
of National Review on one side and David Bier of the Cato Institute.
McCarthy says that the order is legal, particularly given the strong
powers of the executive branch in foreign affairs. Bier claims that
the governing law under which Trump operates is Section 1152(a) of
Title 8, which says “no person shall receive any preference or
priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant
visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth,
or place of residence.” McCarthy says that this provision falls
apart in the face of Section 1182(f), which grants the president the
capacity to suspend the entry “of all aliens or any class of aliens
as immigrants or nonimmigrants” on the basis of declaring such
immigrants “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The
question is whether 1182(f), which was passed in 1952, was narrowed
by 1152(a), or whether 1182(f) overcomes 1152(a). As Patterico
points out in his excellent and cogent analysis, “I think Bier’s
argument is even more persuasive when you note that the non-
discrimination provision in section 1152(a) says it applies ‘[e]
xcept as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections
1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title.’ In other
words, Congress carved out specific exceptions to the general
nondiscrimination rule, and section 1182(f) was not one of the
listed exceptions. That analysis strongly indicates that the rule of
section 1182(f) is not an exception to the nondiscrimination rule in
section 1152(a).”

The Executive Order Moves The Ball Forward, But Is Both Too Broad
and Too Narrow. Trump’s executive order here isn’t incredibly clear.
Does it apply to dual citizens of the named countries? The
administration initially held that it applied to green card holders,
which created a ruckus thanks to the detention of those green card
holders, including legal permanent residents, at airports around the
country. Now the Department of Homeland Security has backtracked.
But let’s look at the policy itself: does it achieve its stated
purpose? It does attempt to limit immigration from countries where
background checks would be hardest to perform, and it does so
temporarily. To pretend that this is some sort of deeply extreme
measure is ridiculous. The outright ban on Syrian refugees is far
harsher, and has drawn more scrutiny publicly. But Trump has the
power under the executive order to allow that moratorium to be
waived upon the creation of better vetting standards.

So, what’s the big problem? There are two: first, the overbroad
application; second, the underbroad drawing.

First, the overbroad application. This executive order should have
been better thought out, run through the Office of Legal Counsel
and in accordance with the Department of Homeland Security. It
should have exempted people like translators for the US military. It
shouldn’t have been applied to green card holders in the air. There
should have been some age restrictions (children?). All of this
merely lent the left the capacity to destroy the executive order on
launch.

Second, the narrowness. Extreme vetting ought to be universally
applied. Why does the executive order not include Saudi Arabia or
Egypt or Pakistan or Afghanistan? Trump cited 9/11 in his original
executive order, but all of the visa holders were from Saudi Arabia
and Egypt on 9/11. What happens when someone leaves Syria, settles
in France, and then wants to travel to the United States using a French visa?

The executive order isn’t the end of the world the left makes it out
to be. It also isn’t the panacea so many of its allies make it out
to be. Trump should pursue extreme vetting, but he should do so with
solid, legal policy that doesn’t give the left the opportunity to
wound it critically, rather than precipitously throwing out flawed
policy.


--
For the first time in 8 years, the presidential schedule is full and
doesn't start with "Private Lunch"