Right or privilege? (originally written Jan. 31, 2017)

Over the weekend, the President signed an executive order that would restrict the entry of foreign citizens, predominantly refugees, from seven different Middle Eastern and African countries for a period of 120 days. It obviously came as a surprise to many people - especially the 109 foreign citizens holding legitimate visas from some of those seven countries as they attempted to enter the USA. It also came as a bit of a surprise to some of our government's officials who were responsible for processing those individuals.

This bureaucratic problem should have been anticipated, but it was determined that giving short notice was preferable to giving refugees awaiting resettlement (who might have been insufficiently vetted and who may not be who they say they are), longer notice. On the surface, that seems like a good reason from a security perspective, but to avoid giving sufficient notice to our immigration and customs officers was a mistake. It ended up creating an unnecessary problem, one the Trump Administration didn't need in the wake of many other executive orders that inspired opposition from human rights groups and the 'protest class' of Americans that were itching for another reason to man the barricades.

Legal scholars and Constitutional law experts have weighed in, and the majority of them have agreed that the order was legal and in keeping with precedent. This did not stop the media from characterizing it as a "Muslim ban" and "contrary to American values," despite the fact that the government's list of countries omitted the two predominantly top Muslim population countries: Indonesia and India. This was to be expected, as the mainstream media is constantly looking for ways to discredit and demean the new Administration and the President.

The situation begs the question, "Is entry to the United States a right or a privilege?" Legally, it is a privilege, granted by the U.S. government. On that there is no legal dispute, but the Left (and especially advocates of open borders) maintain that we have a moral obligation as well as a legal one to take in refugees. According to the 1951 'Refugee Convention,' a person arriving at our shores and claiming political asylum, must be taken in. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) deals with people referred from the UNHCR (the United Nations Human Rights Agency), a U.S. embassy or other assigned non-governmental organizations or a limited direct application scheme. It is available to people who already have refugee status (or who would likely qualify), who are outside the U.S., but may wish our country to consider them for entry as a resettled refugee. (The U.S. was scheduled to take in 110,000 refugees under USRAP in 2017, but the Trump Administration wants this number lowered to 50,000.)

The new executive order calls for USRAP to be suspended for all refugee applicants from these countries for a period of 90-120 days. The reason offered for this suspension by the Administration is that additional vetting of applicants must be done. Of additional note is that the U.S. currently takes in the largest number of refugees under the UNHCR's resettlement program and that under international law there is no legal obligation to even have or operate a resettlement program!

Those opposing the moratorium maintain that no terrorists from those seven countries have actually entered the U.S. and have committed acts of terror in the U.S., so the ban is just a way of punishing innocent, bona fide refugees. Proponents believe that the State Department has not done an adequate job of vetting the refugees therefore, a temporary halt to their entry is justified, until a more thorough job of investigating them has been done. Opponents are trying to make a case that this is a red herring for America's rejection of Muslim immigrants and demonization of the Muslim religion, something the facts contradict. The Administration points to the failed refugee policies of Western Europe (countries like Sweden, Germany and France, to name three), that have led to a massive influx of refugees from Syria, for example, and the need to devise a better system for the U.S. This is not a moral issue; it is a security issue, but it does call into question the U.S.' long term policy on refugees.

While the jury is out on that issue, the lawsuits challenging the Administration's edict will wind their way through the courts, and the recent developments in the Trump Justice Department (the Acting Attorney General has just been removed from her position after publicly refusing to defend any lawsuits against the government) will only serve to strengthen the Left's contention that the Administration is bent on creating immigration policy by executive fiat instead of listening to the will of the people. This is, however, a hypocritical view considering the Obama Administration attempted (and succeeded) in doing just that when Barack Obama was signing illegal executive orders on DACA, for example.

This current situation will continue to unfold in the coming days and weeks, but it will take on the guise of a morality play if left strictly up to the media and the Democrats. The losers will be our reputation on the world stage along with the possibility of achieving political comity that we all had hoped would be resuscitated with the election of 2016.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com