A couple thoughts about http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria
In 2002, the United States admitted only 27,131 refugees. It admitted fewer than 50,000 in 2003, 2006, and 2007. As for President Obama, he was slightly more generous than President Bush, but his refugee cap from 2013 to 2015 was a mere 70,000, and in 2011 and 2012 he admitted barely more than 50,000 refugees himself.
So we didn't admit many refugees under Bush or Obama. So three wrongs now make a right?
"The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the last 15 years before Obama's dramatic expansion in 2016"
So the article definitively states the bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening. Okay, here is some opportunity for some meat of the argument. Wait, maybe not. No citations, evidence or proof. None. Simply a blanket bottom line statement which really means nothing. On the contrary refugees are extremely vetted. Besides enacting a simple ban, what exactly is Trump doing to improve security screening? For reference the current refugee screening process: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states
What about this dramatic expansion from Obama? What? In the previous paragraph he argued that Obama was only
slightly more generous than Bush. Which is it, dramatic more or only slightly? Is the Trump administration only relying on Obama hate to justify an inexcusable policy?
Either way it proves that Obama has (slightly or dramatically) more human decency that Bush or Trump.
"90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen"
If this ban was really sincere, what is the logic in including these particular contries and not, say, Saudi Arabia (whom is the second largest oil supplier to the US (https://top5ofanything.com/list/68dbf1ee/Suppliers-of-U.S.-Oil). Seriously though, the selection of countries is incredibly arbitrary: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/trump-muslim-ban-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order
We know that terrorists are trying to infiltrate the ranks of refugees and other visitors. We know that immigrants from Somalia, for example, have launched jihadist attacks here at home and have sought to leave the U.S. to join ISIS.
So this article in general is supposedly about separating fact from hysteria. This is an emotionally charged statement that itself leads to hysteria. Calmer minds will realize that in the last five yeras you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818). It is worth noting that your death by terrorist is much more likely to be a domestic terrorist, not foreign.
It’s particularly gross to see this display when the Obama administration’s deliberate decision to leave a yawning power vacuum
More finger pointing and playing politics over other people's right to live.
federal asylum and refugee law already require a religious test... religious considerations are by law part of refugee policy.
The argument here is either confused or disingenuous. By definition a refugee is any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality ... and who is unable or unwilling to return to ... that country because of persecution. So naturally religion might be a reason for one's persecution. There are a lot of reasons that someone is a refugee. The difference here is that religious persecution may be a reason for acceptance, whereas religious affiliation should not be a reason for denial.
Finally, you can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban.
Convenient right? Drive hysteria (see above). Emphasize the danger of refugees. Try to stay within the bounds of the law to act on your religious and ethnic prejudices (https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-says-trump-asked-him-how-to-legally-enact-muslim-ban-174303609.html).
In closing let's consider the idea that accepting refugees does significantly lower our national security. Does that justify turning our back on these people? Let's consider World War 2 and the plight of the European Jewish population. All across Europe, Jews and other unfortunate groups were systematically exterminated by the Nazi Regime. Aiding or assisting these people could mean life or death for all of those involved. As a result, many people and nations not only accepted but were complicit in Nazi atrocities. Except for Denmark. The Danish people as a whole rejected the Nazi's attempts to apprehend Jews. In fact the Danish resistence was able to save over 94% (https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007740) of its Jewish population by smuggling them in boats to Sweden. Rather than justifying compliance in the name of self preservation, the Danish people took the higher road. We too can take a higher road.