![\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File%3ABombed_out_vehicles_Aleppo.jpg;](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2016\/12\/Bombed_out_vehicles_Aleppo.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
So Trump\u2019s big \u201cextreme vetting\u201d executive order was signed yesterday, and I\u2019ve been waiting for the text to be added to the White House site, though so far I\u2019ve\u00a0only found it at CNN.com<\/a>, along with a summary of its contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n First, the good<\/strong>:<\/p>\n There are three bits of \u201cfake news\u201d floating around:<\/p>\n First, the executive order does not prioritize Christian refugees<\/strong>. \u00a0Here\u2019s the text:<\/p>\n Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual\u2019s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, first of all, everyone that claims that Trump is \u201ckilling Anne Frank all over again\u201d would do well to note that this is exactly the sort of provision which, had it existed in the 30s, would have given the Frank family a visa, as a religious minority. \u00a0It makes perfect sense to prioritize religious minorities both because their situation is objectively worse, in terms of their treatment in refugee camps*, and because the likelihood that they will be able to be eventually repatriated is lower \u2014 at least everything I\u2019ve seen suggests that even when the shooting ends, the Christians, Yazidis and other religious minorities will have a much more difficult time returning home. \u00a0(*Side comment: \u00a0it\u2019s my understanding that the reason why, even though Christians make up 10% of the Syrian population, they comprise less than 0.5% of refugee admissions<\/a>, is that they are victims of abuse by Muslims within the official refugee camps, so they take refuge elsewhere, and are thus ineligible for the UN-sponsored refugee resettlement programs.) \u00a0It also seems to me, though it\u2019s not been mentioned in any reports, that this would provide preferential status to the Rohingya<\/a>, a Muslim minority group in Myanmar.<\/p>\n Second, the countries whose nationals are\u00a0(temporarily) banned from admission are not spelled out in the executive order<\/strong> at all. \u00a0The CNN report clarifies that this is a restriction that applies to a pre-existing list of countries:<\/p>\n \u201cThe executive order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen . . . from entering the United States. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as \u201ccountries of concern.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What\u2019s this about? \u00a0CNN labels this as referencing a 2016 law, but it seems to be a 2016 implementation of a 2015 law, the\u00a0Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. \u00a0The Customs and Border Protection site<\/a> explains that this law specified certain terrorism-linked countries, travel to which made a visitor ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program. \u00a0In other words, if you\u2019re a British national but have travelled to Syria, you must go through the full process to obtain a visa rather than simply showing your passport at the border as would otherwise be permitted. \u00a0The original law covered Iraq and Syria (see the full text here<\/a>), the other countries were added in early 2016<\/a>, that is (does it need to be said?) by the Obama administration.<\/p>\n Hence, whether you agree or disagree with this 90 day moratorium, it does not seem appropriate to label this discriminatorily anti-Muslim.<\/p>\n Third, there were reports that Trump had gone so far as to eliminate the Visa Waiver Program entirely. \u00a0Not true. \u00a0Trump is suspending the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which requires that individuals seeking nonimmigrant visas, not eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, be interviewed in person. \u00a0The Order also calls for an expansion of the Consular Fellows Program<\/a> to provide more interviewers. \u00a0(I guess these aren\u2019t included in the hiring freeze because they\u2019re not career appointments?)<\/p>\n The order also requires the biometric entry-exit tracking system which has been stipulated by law since 1996 but never actually implemented by any of the administrations that have come and gone since then. \u00a0(See this article in The Hill<\/a>; yes, it\u2019s by the head of Numbers USA, but I\u2019m going to assume that he\u2019s being straight on the basic facts.)<\/p>\n The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And \u2014 well, in general, it\u2019s entirely reasonable to call for visa screening procedures to be reviewed and tightened to exclude from entry those who could pose a terrorist threat, or who may potentially<\/p>\n engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including \u201chonor\u201d killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Next: \u00a0The bad.<\/p>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n The bad<\/strong>:<\/p>\n First, some context.\u00a0 Per a UN site<\/a>,<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In addition,<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Pew<\/a> provides a further breakdown, and reports that 46% of refugee admissions where Muslim, 44% Christian, and 10% other\/no faith \u2014 though that\u2019s hard to piece together from their table, which breaks down admissions by country of origin \u2014 I just can\u2019t find enough Christian-majority countries in this list to account for 44% of the total. \u00a0(Bhutan? This is an ethnic group called the Lhotshampa<\/a>, who came to the U.S. by way of Nepal, being driven out of Bhutan into refugee camps in the late 80s\/early 90s.)<\/p>\n There are refugees all over the world seeking entry into the United States,\u00a0as well as an additional 16,000 granted asylum (2015 figures; the latest available, from this report<\/a> found via nolo.com<\/a>). \u00a0Yet there are 15 million-ish refugees<\/a> in refugee camps seeking refuge; clearly our admission of a tiny percentage is just symbolic.<\/p>\n But here\u00a0is Trump\u2019s order:<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n (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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes, we delude ourselves if we imagine that just because you\u2019re in a refuge camp, you\u2019re a lover of democracy and equal treatment. \u00a0Many 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. \u00a0And there are serious assimilation problems with refugees already in the United States; a December 2015 David Frum Atlantic article<\/a> highlights many of these with respect to the Somali community here.<\/p>\n But the \u201cnational interest\u201d? \u00a0It would be in the \u201cnational interest\u201d to erase the refugee program entirely, wouldn\u2019t it? \u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n But to hold the admission of Syrian, or any refugees, to a standard of meeting a \u201cnational interest\u201d?<\/p>\n To quote a certain commercial: \u00a0\u201cthat\u2019s not how this works. \u00a0That\u2019s not how any of this works.\u201d<\/p>\n Next: \u00a0The ugly.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The ugly:<\/strong><\/p>\n To go back to the \u201ccountries of concern\u201d, the order says:<\/p>\n I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As the text is written, this appears to block the return\u00a0of those who are already living in the United States, as permanent residents or under a long-term visa, and who have temporarily travelled abroad, as well as preventing any such immigrants from taking a trip in the next 90 days.\u00a0One imagines that this was a drafting error only and will be straightened out shortly, but it\u2019s already being treated as fact<\/a>. \u00a0And even a drafting error is not much of a consolation, as that speaks to a more general incompetence of the administration, which had better start drafting\/proposing legislation to Congress rather than just creating executive orders.<\/p>\n And that\u2019s my biggest concern, quite honestly. \u00a0I just can\u2019t imagine the administration sticking to a ban on existing immigrants re-entering the U.S., but it\u2019s clear that that the whole process isn\u2019t well-enough thought out, and I fear that rather than a brief pause to improve vetting measures, it becomes something nonworkable, or even just useless, if the moratorium ends and produces just the same process as before, but with, in the meantime, a worse public image.<\/p>\n UPDATE: \u00a0Apparently, it\u2019s even uglier that it at first seemed. \u00a0CNN reports<\/a> that the White House did indeed intend for the moratorium to apply to Green Card holders. \u00a0The situation is still chaotic and it\u2019s not clear what the administration\u2019s intended outcome is here. \u00a0But, yeah: \u00a0ugly.<\/p>\n![\"http:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/fact-tank\/2016\/10\/05\/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016\/\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2017\/01\/FT_16.10.03_muslimRefugees_countries.png\")