Trump Immigration Executive Order addresses threats that “didn’t exist 10 years ago”
My interview on BBC World News
I appeared Monday night, January 30, 2017, on BBC World News hosted by Mike Embley.
The topic was Trump’s immigration Executive Order. We didn’t talk about all the provisions, just the 90 day delay on visa entry from 7 majority Muslim nations.
You can find many of my arguments in my prior post, Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading.
One issue not discussed before is the common assertion that neither 9/11 nor other terrorist attacks were from people entering the U.S. from those 7 countries. I explained why that’s not a legitimate attack on the Executive Order:
“Q. Just looking at the figures, in the past 40 years, you will know this, there’s not been a fatal terrorist attack in the U.S. carried out by anyone belonging to the 7 nationalities targeted by this Order. These measures wouldn’t have kept the 9/11 attackers out because Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, they’re not on the list ….
A. …. in terms of whether people from those countries have conducted past attacks, that’s not the point of the security measures that are taken in immigration, it’s meant to prevent foreign fighters in a new environment, one that didn’t exist 10 years ago, being infiltrated into the U.S. much as they’ve been infiltrated into Europe, and ISIS stated goal is to infiltrate people. That’s not something that existed several years ago. So I think it’s apples and oranges to say that just because no one from these countries has previously attacked that there isn’t a real threat. And if you’re saying that it’s bigotry by Donald Trump why would the Department of Homeland Security in 2006 [sic – 2016] when President Obama was in office, why would they have identified these 7 countries as representing unique threats to the nation?”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Regarding the Executive Order on Refugees…….remember when EVERYONE was stuck at the airport, unable to go anywhere? I think that day was September 11, 2001.
Silly, that was Bush’s fault.
Remember when the left exploded all outrageously outragety at the Cuban refugee ban Barry implemented just a short couple weeks ago?
No…me neither. Seems that to the lefty liberals only SOME lives matter.
Good job, Prof.! You didn’t let the Beeb guy push you ’round, and that MAY be a contender for the “over-shoulder-earpiece toss” record…!!!
Well done. Glad you circled back to correct him that your blog post analyzed the legality of the EO, not that you supported it or necessarily believe it is good policy.
The Left’s argument that nobody from those countries attacked the U.S. is persuasive IF they are allowed to frame the EO as retributive. But it’s not. It’s not punishment for past bad behavior. It’s a pro-active security measure intended to give the new administration time to develop new vetting procedures, which is exactly what Trump campaigned on.
Furthermore, as Kevin Williams points out, nobody from those countries has a constitutionally protected legal right to come here anyway. However, shortly before Trump’s election, Harry Reid wanted to deny AMERICAN CITIZENS their CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECT right to buy a certain kind of rifle that gives him and Diane Feinstein the vapors simply by having their name added to a secret list by a government employee. No trial. No appeals. No due process. If some bureaucrat thinks you shouldn’t own a gun, then Democrats wanted to deny you of your constitutionally protected right to own a gun. Democrats lined up for it. Not a peep from them about using government to deny American citizens constitutionally protected rights.
But let a Somali or Yemeni who has no legal right to be here be temporarily inconvenienced from entering the country for a few weeks until the new administration develops its vetting criteria and the Democrats set their hair in fire.
Thank you Prof.
Besides being a great interview you helped me understand why the lefists’ argument that no deaths can be attributed to terrorist from those 7 countries is not relevant.
The important point to all of this is that, except for people who want to destabilize this country and those who make a living, usually using federal money, for resettling refugees in the US, nobody really cares if Yemenis or Syrians come to the US. They were not objecting when Obama did the same thing 6 years ago, or when he changed the wet foot-dry foot policy. Embrace that fact and the next explains what this is all about.
All of this hand wringing, crying and shrieking is simply a way to attack Donald Trump. Nothing more. It is all pointless. At this point, the best way to address the “concern” of the people doing the caterwauling is to ignore them. No matter how clear and logical your explanation, it will not matter one iota. This is all about attacking the sitting President of the United States of America. And those doing the attacking will never admit to their lies and slander.
Ignore it and move on.
Great great interview Professor. Kudos to you. Thank you.
It may be that no American was KILLED by people from those 7 nations, but 2 Iraqis were caught plotting attacks, so the Obama administration issued a 6 month ban; and a Somali used a car to run over people at Ohio State, he got out of his car and began stabbing people – this was indeed a TERRORIST ATTACK (albeit non-fatal) that just happened in November, 2016. The Somali planned on killing them all but was prevented from doing so.
Because these plots were not deadly, should we allow ourselves to become victims so that some liberals can feel good about letting into our country those who we cannot fully screen?