President Trump kicked over a hornet's nest by imposing a 90-ban on immigration from selected Muslim countries in keeping with his campaign pledges. Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor who convicted the Blind Sheikh and his accomplices of the first World Trade Center bombing, explains why the ban is legal--despite a federal judge's restraining order against implementation of the order. I'll leave it to the legal experts to explain why this is yet another outrageous abuse of power by the judiciary.
The legal issues will be sorted out soon enough. It's the right policy, despite liberal whining and some conservative complaints.
The liberals claim that the immigration halt will convince Muslims that the US administration isn't fighting ISIS and other terrorists, but Muslims as a religious group. Some conservatives, e.g. Walter Russell Mead, call it "callous." The latter characterization is misleading. It is callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks. In Europe, the elites accept a certain level of terrorism as the cost of doing business, and the people grudgingly accept it. Americans don't see why they should sacrifice their safety or sense of security to accommodate the hurt feelings of other people. Prof. Mead compares this to America's refusal to accept Jewish immigrants during the Holocaust. I respect Mead, but I find the comparison offensive: How many Jewish refugees from Hitler murdered civilians at random (the answer is, not one)?
|