Trump’s “Muslim Ban” executive order: the good, the bad, and the ugly

The bad:

First, some context.  Per a UN site,

The 85,000 refugees resettled to the United States in FY 2016 included 16,370 from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 12,587 from Syria, 12,347 from Myanmar, 9,880 from Iraq and 9,020 from Somalia.

In addition,

In FY 2016, 12,587 Syrian refugees were admitted into the US, compared with 1,682 in 2015, exceeding the target of 10,000 set by President Obama.

Pew provides a further breakdown, and reports that 46% of refugee admissions where Muslim, 44% Christian, and 10% other/no faith — though that’s hard to piece together from their table, which breaks down admissions by country of origin — I just can’t find enough Christian-majority countries in this list to account for 44% of the total.  (Bhutan? This is an ethnic group called the Lhotshampa, who came to the U.S. by way of Nepal, being driven out of Bhutan into refugee camps in the late 80s/early 90s.)

There are refugees all over the world seeking entry into the United States, as well as an additional 16,000 granted asylum (2015 figures; the latest available, from this report found via nolo.com).  Yet there are 15 million-ish refugees in refugee camps seeking refuge; clearly our admission of a tiny percentage is just symbolic.

But here is Trump’s order:

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

Yes, we delude ourselves if we imagine that just because you’re in a refuge camp, you’re a lover of democracy and equal treatment.  Many of those in Syrian refugee camps, in particular, have not fled ISIS so much as the Assad regime, and could just as easily be supporters of extremist Islam as not, but in either case prefer living in a refugee camp to fighting in a war zone.  And there are serious assimilation problems with refugees already in the United States; a December 2015 David Frum Atlantic article highlights many of these with respect to the Somali community here.

But the “national interest”?  It would be in the “national interest” to erase the refugee program entirely, wouldn’t it?  The entire idea of the refugee program is to do something which lies outside the national interest, to in some small way provide aid to individuals who are not American.

It is appropriate to ensure that the refugee-admissions program does not harm our country, that we take in no more refugees than can properly be assimilated, that we screen potential refugees to ensure those we admit have the potential to be assimilated, and that we provide such funds as are needed to aid in their assimilation.

But to hold the admission of Syrian, or any refugees, to a standard of meeting a “national interest”?

To quote a certain commercial:  “that’s not how this works.  That’s not how any of this works.”

Next:  The ugly.