On Friday, January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump again wielded his executive pen tightening border access to refugees, and suspending access to radical Islamic terrorists. Following through on his pledge to establish a hard line stand against the relaxed immigration policies of the former administration.
Critics of the latest executive order are calling the move discriminatory and unconstitutional by Democrats, and human-rights groups. The new standards for vetting are meant to keep Islamic terrorists out of the U.S.
President Trump says, “We don’t want them here, Want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the key threats our soldiers are fighting overseas. We only want to admit those into our country who support our country and love deeply our people,” as reported by the Hill.
The current order will block refuses from Syria indefinitely and suspends any and all refugee entrants for at least 120 days. The administration will use the four-month time frame to determine which countries pose the least threat the American people.
What is discriminatory about assuring that the people allowed into the U.S. do not pose a threat to the sanctity and the American way of life? No one wishes any ill-harm against the people of Syria, Lord knows they have suffered much during the war. However, the U.S has been the ‘go-to’ country for so many, for so long, we have forgotten what it’s like to use discretion.
It’s the same thing we all do when we decide where to live and raise a family. Most people know what areas of their city, they should avoid. In all cases, the decision has to do with the rate of crime, lack of visible security, and unfamiliar territory. No one is criticized for checking out the schools, and distance to shopping when considering their options for relocating. The very same people, raising the most objections are typically just as careful when it comes to making everyday decisions.
Although the U.S. already has the most rigorous vetting system for refugees, it appears to be much less than the actual 18 – 24 months. However, Trump along with others that agree with his action today, view the current program as a security risk.
Many, including the ACLU, is calling the extreme vetting against Muslims, religious discrimination, yet fail to recognize that the Islamic extremist claim allegiance to Allah, coincidentally referring to the same god as all Muslims. By no means am I implying that all Muslims share the same level of faith, maturity, or hate for Americans, just like it would be wrong to judge that of all people in any religion. I am, however, articulating the same adage, we’ve all heard for years, ‘guilty by association.’ Is it wrong for Americans to support the increased vetting of radical Islamic terrorists if it means that just one person will escape death as a result of a terrorist act? If so, then so be it, the bottom line is our system elected Donald Trump to be President of the United States of America.
Although he is subject to making less-than-perfect decisions, let’s at least agree that the protection of our borders is more important than making such critical decisions based on popularity.
President Trump is concerned about those who hate America, it just so happens that most vocal of those groups claim allegiance to the same god, as those who take pride in the killing of innocent people, regardless of where they live. It is not his order that calls them out from among others; it’s their decision to choose who they serve.
The measure taken today by our newly elected president to restrict immigrants entering the U.S. is no different than you or I locking our home, or vehicles, or take steps to protect sensitive information.
Opinion by Jireh Gibson
THE HILL: Trump bans Syrian refugees, restricts entry from Muslim states
Top and Featured Image Courtesy of Dave Hosford’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License