Reports: What has Changed in Donald Trump’s Incoming Refugee Order


The White House is delaying the release of his revised curbs on the arrival of Islamic refugees, amid grudging praise by establishment media for President Donald Trump’s Feb. 28 speech to the joint session of Congress.

Multiple media reports say the revised Executive Order will curb travel into the United States by people in six countries where internal conflict prevents reliable vetting of refugees. The countries include Iran, Yemen, and Syria. Since 2001, federal officials have arrested and convicted dozens of people from those countries for jihad-related offenses.

Media reports say the new order includes several changes from Trump’s Jan. 25 order, which was blocked by far-left judges in California. For example, the new order reportedly drops preferences for religious minorities in Islamic countries and it allows customs agents to admit travelers from the named countries who have already received visas from federal agencies. The new Executive Order also includes a new delay between promulgation and implementation, which is intended to prevent semi-public surprise exclusions of migrants as they land at U.S. airports. The order also drops Iraq from the list of excluded countries.

But those concessions will not prevent Trump’s agency employees from stopping or reducing the award of travel visas to people in the six countries, so denying the travelers’ ability to fly into the United States. That expected shift of the refugee barriers from U.S. airports over to U.S. embassies in foreign countries is expected to frustrate opposition from left-wing judges, immigration-boosting media outlets, plus Islamic and progressive pressure groups. These groups decry Trump’s Jan. 25 order as a “travel ban” and a “Muslim ban,” even though the order does not ban travel or the arrival of Muslims.

On Feb. 3, judges on the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals justified their unprecedented intervention in Trumps pro-American visa policy by declaring that Americans have an individual right to import foreign immigrants, regardless of Congress’ laws, the constitution and presidential powers over immigration. “Citizens who have an interest in specific noncitizens’ ability to travel to the United States.” such as a university’s foreign customer, have a right to ask judges to overrule presidential power, said the far-left judges, who also ignored the stream of jihadis flowing into the United States from those countries.

Administration officials have not yet said if they intended to counter-attack the judges’ unprecedented claim that foreigners can ask judges for visas. That claim is not based on any law, which assigns all control over visas to the president and his subordinate agencies.

Left-wingers are now trying to develop new excuses for judges to strike down Trump’s updated order.

An Islamic advocacy group, for example, is portraying Trump’s opposition to Islamic immigration as “fear mongering” and as a violation of “religious liberty,” despite the immense financial and civic costs inflicted by many murderous jihadis since the 9/11 atrocity in 2001.

The MPAC advocacy group was founded by a California-based Egyptian immigrant, who touted leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic revivalist group.

A Washington Post opinion writer, for example, tried another approach, saying that:

Top Trump adviser Stephen Miller says the ban isn’t just about national security; it’s also about protecting American workers from foreign competition and protecting taxpayers from the drain on public benefits that refugees represent…

… the rationale for the ban is rooted in something much broader — a combined longer-term demographic reshaping project designed to protect American workers from foreign competition and prevent European-style immigrant communities (which are seen as potential incubators of terror attacks) from developing in the United States …

Put this all together, and the idea that there is a serious and legitimate short term national security rationale for the travel ban is becoming harder and harder to sustain. It’s hard to say whether this will have any legal significance once the new version is introduced, but we now have very little doubt as to what is actually driving it.

In fact, Trump was elected in November to do what the Washington Post writer complains about — to favor Americans over foreigners.

In his Feb. 28 speech to the joint session of Congress, Trump promised to continue those policies, saying:

Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others –- have a merit-based immigration system.  It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially.  Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon.  According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs America’s taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.

Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, will have many benefits:  it will save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages, and help struggling families –- including immigrant families –- enter the middle class.

I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.

Trump also declared that new immigrants should love Americans. “Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values,” he said, implicitly excluding adherents of orthodox Islam, which repeatedly urges its believers to be hostile to non-Muslims and to favor Muslims over others.

In his January order, Trump said the nation should exclude would-be immigrants who have hostile attitudes.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” 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.

So far, left-wing judges have not attacked Trump’s popular policy of rejecting migration by people with hostile attitudes. 

The Jan. 25 order also halved the future inflow of refugees, from President Barack Obama’s level of 110,000 per year, down to Trump’s level of 50,000 per year.