The President’s immigration order is a response to the growing refugee crisis in Syria. James Carafano, who served on the Trump administration transition team, explains the thinking behind the administration’s executive order on travel from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen: “As the space for the Islamic State, or ISIS, gets squeezed in the Middle East, the remains of the tens of thousands of foreign fighters will have to flow somewhere. Every nation, not just the U.S., believes they are most likely to flow to the countries cited in the order. That fact, and only that fact, is why those countries are included on the list. Indeed, when it comes to visa vetting, that’s why the European Union has restrictions that are comparable to the United States.
“The reason why we all worry is because, from those countries, foreign fighters could well try to flow to the West, principally by using visas or posing as refugees. When they get to the West, they could carry out terrorist acts. We know that because they already have—specifically in Western Europe.
“They haven’t come to the U.S.—yet. Right now, our primary threat is Islamist-related terror plots that are organized by terrorists who are already here.
“What this administration is doing is making sure we are ready for the next wave of terrorism as well—the outflow of terrorists from the countries of conflict where the foreign fighters are likely to go first.” [The Daily Signal]
* * * * * * * * *
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former refugee from Somalia and a former Muslim. She thinks tougher immigration controls to screen out terrorists are just the beginning of a more sensible policy. She writes:
“The Obama administration had a flawed solution to this problem, which it called countering violent extremism. The Trump administration needs a completely new approach that targets not just violence, but the proponents of subversive Islamist views — the phenomenon of dawa or proselytizing. This ideological indoctrination is the essential prelude to acts of jihad, yet for too long it has been going on with impunity.
“Addressing the problem of Islamist terrorism will require much more than better immigration controls, though we certainly need those. It will necessitate the systematic dismantling of the ideological infrastructure of dawa, which is already well established right here in the United States.
“President Trump was right back in August. The threat posed by ‘the hateful ideology of radical Islam’ needs to be countered. American citizens — including immigrants — must be protected from that ideology and the violence that it promotes. But the threat is too multifaceted to be dealt with by executive orders. That is why Trump was right to argue in August for a commission of some kind — I would favor congressional hearings — to establish the full magnitude and nature of the threat.
“Until we recognize that this ideology is already in our midst, we shall expend all our energies in feverish debates about executive orders, when what is needed is cool, comprehensive legislation.” [WorldPost]
Then why doesn’t the ban cover countries from which citizens have ACTUALLY attacked the US? Like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? I’d feel safer if some of these things were determined based on real facts, not alternate facts.