The debate over admitting thousands of refugees into our country from areas of the world known for exporting terrorism is really a no brainer. Considering the fact that the United States has yet to set up an efficient vetting system, and also considering how ISIS has admitted to using the refugee programs to invade and attack, you would think no one in their right mind would still want to bring refugees in by the thousands. It comes down to a simple analogy that I say all the time on my radio program – if you had one hundred gumballs and you knew that five of them were poisonous, would you eat one? (RELATED: White House encouraging further terrorist invasion of America with emotionally charged hashtag push: #RefugeesWelcome.)
Shockingly, earlier this month, U.S. District Judge James Robart put a freeze on Trump’s executive order. “The executive order adversely affects the state’s residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel,” Robart wrote in his ruling, adding that the executive order also caused “significant” harm to the state’s public universities and tax base.
With his decision, Robart demonstrated to the entire country that not only is he a left wing ideologue, but it also served as a reminder to the American people that the courts have become nothing more than partisan institutions to advance particular political agendas. A simple look at federal immigration law – which Robart didn’t even cite in his formal opinion – shows that this executive order was well within President Trump’s authority.
Section 1182(f) of federal immigration law states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Yet sadly, based on Judge Robart’s ruling, it appears that section 1182(f) was all but ignored. Even though it was the primary basis for President Trump’s executive order, the law wasn’t mentioned once in the ruling.
Since the decision on February 3rd, 60% of the refugees admitted into the United States have been from 5 of the 7 countries that were on Trump’s list. Of the 2,576 refugees that have come into our country over the past few weeks, 532 were from Syria, 472 were from Iraq, 363 were from Somalia, 117 were from Iran, and 65 were from Sudan. This is a total of 1,549 refugees or 60.1%. There were no refugees from the other two countries on President Trump’s list, Yemen and Libya. (RELATED: UN forcing sovereign nations to accept waves of refugees peppered with ISIS terrorists.)
According to data from the State Department Refugee Processing Center, of the 2,576 refugees that have come into our country since the court’s ruling, 1,424, or 55.3%, are Muslims. 817 were Sunnis, 132 were Shi’ites, and 475 simply self-identified as Muslims.
It is also worth noting that with the exception of Iran, the refugees that came from these countries on President Trump’s list were overwhelmingly Muslim. 99.6% of the refugees from Syria were Muslim, 73.5% of refugees from Iraq were Muslim, 99.7% from Somalia, and 93.8% from Sudan. Of the Iranian refugees admitted, however, only 9.4% were Muslim and nearly 60% were Christians.
The liberals would look at these figures and tell you that what Trump wanted to do was enact a Muslim ban. The reality, though, is that only 13% of the world’s Muslims would be affected by the temporary travel ban – if it were really a Muslim ban, then that number would be 100%.
Furthermore, at the end of the day, this entire executive order is all about national security. It’s an absolute shame that liberal activists and judges are putting partisan politics before our safety.