Experts: Original travel ban kept us safer

National defense and immigration experts argue that President Donald Trump had it right when he initially introduced his travel ban through signing an executive order.

In the wake of the commander-in-chief second-guessing his original travel ban that was held up and overruled by a Seattle, Washington, judge, a national defense analyst says he is not convinced that exempting green card and visa holders in Trump’s revised travel ban is a good idea.

On Monday, the Trump White House finally issued its new executive order suspending the United States refugee program, as well as travel, from now six mostly Muslim countries – down from seven.

The original order was put on hold by a federal court, but the new version clearly delineates that citizens from those countries with valid green cards or visas are exempt from the ban.

In addition, Trump’s new revision has now removed Iraq from the list of countries that face a 90-day U.S. travel ban.

Bob Maginnis, who serves as a senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council (FRC), asserts that he does not buy into the argument that green card and visas holders from those countries should have already been properly vetted.

“I have little confidence in the Obama administration’s vetting process,” Maginnis insisted. “Katy bar the door they let everybody in. So, no – I have no reason to expect that that is necessarily good news.”

Maginnis, who is the author of Future War: Super Soldiers, Terminators, Cyberspace, and the National Security Strategy for 21st Century Combat, expressed he is concerned that the liberal members of the 4–4 split in the U.S. Supreme Court could still allow a lower court to strike down the new order.

“Now, I understand they’re liberals … they don’t read the Constitution – much less abide by it,” the leader from FRC stressed. “That is a concern to me. But at this point, I’m cautiously optimistic that even that a split court like we have would give the president the nod and allow him to execute his job – as defined by the Constitution.”

Maginnis also agrees with those who believe that the courts have overstepped their bounds in questioning the president’s constitutional authority to defend this country.

Another argument for the travel ban

Also supporting Trump’s original travel ban, a border enforcement advocate says a revelation by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is clear confirmation that refugees from certain countries do want to do us harm.

During a news conference following the president’s issuance of a new revised travel ban, Sessions confirmed to reporters that nearly one-third of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 1,000 domestic terrorist cases involve individuals admitted to the country as refugees.

“In fact, today, more than 300 people – according to the FBI – who came here as refugees are under an FBI investigation for alleged terrorism-related activity,” the new attorney general pointed out. “Like every nation, the United States has a right to control who enters our country and to keep out those who would do us harm.”

Ira Mehlman, who serves as a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), maintains that Sessions’ revelation puts critics of the president’s call for extreme vetting back on their heels.

“We don’t want to have to wait until there is a terrorist act in this country before we take steps to protect the security of the American people,” Mehlman argued. “If you go back just a few months to the attack at Ohio State University, that was carried out by a Somali refugee who’d only been in the country a few years.”

However, Mehlman contends that no matter how air-tight the president’s “Travel Ban 2.0” might be, the Left will do everything it can to stop its implementation on March 16.

—-