Trump's Executive Order on Immigration:

Pragmatic Temporary Slowing of Immigration

or Ad Hoc Immigration Ban?

                                                       By Michael E. Nathanson  

  Author of "Cries of The Eagle"

I'm going to take a position here that is thoroughly unpopular, yet I believe justified. President Trump's executive order to temporarily halt immigration from six specific countries is correct from a logical, moral and legal view.

The executive order that has given so much fodder to the press has been called a "crime against all immigrants," an "all-out Muslim ban," a "travesty," a "redefining of America," and many other less complimentary descriptions. The President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, the singularly ascribed author of this "outrageous unconstitutional act" has been demeaned every which way by the opposition press and political machine. That is completely expected and pro forma for a press and political body that is still in denial that they lost the election due to a tired, erroneous platform and candidate rather than an aberration caused by an uprising of the Neanderthal, knuckle-dragging Middle-American electorate.

Former President Barrack Obama's words come to mind. "Elections have consequences!" Mr. Obama's presidency was certainly highly consequential, and he and his administration implemented executive orders that he believed were true and correct for the country. Depending upon your point of view you can argue that these were good or bad things for our country.

The President's executive order, which temporarily impedes immigration of persons from six specifically named countries deemed a threat to national security. The countries are Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya, with Iraq being removed from the original list. These happen to be terrorism hotspots and predominantly Muslim countries. Therein lies the rub. It is the political root of the accusation that Trump has created an anti-Muslim ban. That's simply not true.

1. Why is the executive order logical? Americans of all religions and ethnicities are rightly concerned about our country's security. Our concerns are not without precedent. This is not xenophobia, Islamophobia, paranoia, or fascism, as it has also been called. We live in a dangerous world. There are people of certain radical theological and political beliefs (they do not happen to be Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Shinto, Taoist, etc., but are radical Islamists, extreme members of the two major sects of the Muslim religion),  from the specifically named countries impacted by the executive order that are embroiled in civil unrest, warfare and terrorism and that would export harm to the United States and its citizens given access and opportunity. These countries have governments that are either besieged by terrorists, overtly threatening to the United States, unstable, are in shambles, or without any solid infrastructure and control. They either do not have the resources or the desire to thoroughly vet their own people prior to their travel abroad. These governments are not bent upon exporting fine ambassadors of peace and goodwill to the western world. These six named countries are deemed to pose a large enough threat by our government to require America to temporarily halt immigration from these locations while the U.S. beefs up its immigration security and vetting procedures to rise to the increased need. This is pragmatic, and not a Muslim-ban, as it has been labeled. A Muslim ban would bar immigration from the 50 or so Muslim countries and 1.6 billion Muslims of the world, not six countries specifically that are problematic. So, to call the executive order a Muslim ban is intellectually dishonest. It is a political lance that serves certain interests, but it is not based upon fact. There are many Muslim people coming to and traveling throughout the U.S. from other Islamic countries, large and small.

1. The Commander-in-Chief and our government have a duty to protect the people and borders of our country from invasion and harm. If a threat is perceived to our security it is imperative for the safety of all American citizens that we act upon it rationally and with purpose. This is as much a moral obligation as practical. There is a moral imperative on the part of our president and government to preserve and protect the American way of life. America is very much inclusive rather than exclusive, as some would have us believe. You want to come to America because you love what this country represents and you want to be a part of it and you want to contribute to it with your talents and hard work? Fantastic! Come on in! You want to assimilate and learn the language, customs, culture, governance and be first and foremost an American, as well as having the wonderful freedom to maintain and enjoy your religious, cultural and ethnic heritage as you see fit? Absolutely! Welcome!!  We are a thinking and compassionate country that has always valued our immigrant heritage and America has always encouraged and celebrated legal immigration. There are few ceremonies more precious and beautiful than that of those attaining American citizenship. We are a civilized country of laws, not a lawless country of the uncivil. If a prospective immigrant is not good-willed, does not want to be an American, and wants to come here for subversion or outright destruction of America and its people, the president and our government have a moral obligation to the American people to do their best to guard against this. If this means temporarily halting immigration from countries that are known to not sufficiently vet their departing passengers outbound to the United States, then it is incumbent upon our Commander-in-Chief and supporting governmental agencies to take measures to protect all citizens to the best of their ability against ill-willed inbound passengers. The president's executive order to halt immigration temporarily from these six countries is quite moral, altruistic, and it took guts to put himself in front of the political flamethrower. It doesn't mean that it won't pose a temporary inconvenience or an added burden to some travelers or potential immigrants, or delay the plans of some to travel to the USA altogether. It also does not mean it will be in effect forever or that American citizens' families will be torn asunder or that they will be kicked to the side of the road as some of the reporting will have you believe. It will get worked out to where it needs to be.

1. The President has the legal authority to do so. Congress granted the president powers under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which allows him to place temporary restrictions on immigration based on country of origin. The POTUS placed six specifically problematic countries with known terrorist ties and threats on temporary immigration restriction, which temporarily impacts refugee inflow to the United States. It is for the enhanced protection of all the American people during a difficult period in history. Call it a time out. One could make the case for additional countries to be temporarily added to the list until necessary augmented vetting and processing services can be implemented and brought up to speed. That's another discussion. The legal language is clear even if the politics surrounding the issue and constitutional wrangling are not. There are surely political interests that do not like it, just as there are political interests on both sides of the aisle that did not support the many executive orders of the previous president and those before him. It is the way of our democracy. I do not believe the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals will ultimately prevail in their overturning of the president's executive order temporarily halting immigration from those six countries.  This new revised executive order regarding immigration will likely stick. Bottom line – Americans do not want to grant ill-willed or criminal individuals who might be sent here either intentionally by avowed enemies or negligently by countries that have easy access through the refugee and immigration process. That's not healthy for America. Vigilance is not a bad thing. Our President is responding appropriately with a legal, thoughtful, measured, temporary executive order, aimed at slowing the immigration process from a select few problematic countries of origin, as has been done by other presidents at other times in our country's history. The argument over the right or wrong of it will always exist. It's going to tick someone off, somewhere, somehow, no matter how it's worded or executed. I believe it is right and just at this place in time. Just one writer's opinion. Take it with a grain of salt. Live and let live is a great policy and way of life for all good-willed people. It's at the heart of America. So also is doing our reasonable best to stop those who are espousing our country's destruction and would hasten it. God bless America!   

About Michael E Nathanson

Coming from a family of writers (his father is well known for his book THE DIRTY DOZEN), Michael E. Nathanson is the author of Cries of the Eagle his first novel. Michael believes 'there is a segment of the Muslim population that is radicalized and very dangerous to the world, yet we cannot forget that it is just a segment of a very large religious population. That population still needs to be represented by positive heroes. I want the reader of my book to meet some rich characters and also hear a clear gospel message of hope and love that our world so desperately needs today.' Visit the author's website: http://www.MichaeleNathanson.com