A few questions that folks should be asking themselves:
1. The media is parading stories of the poor, sweet, innocent people who got stuck at the border as a result of Trump’s executive order. If there were 50 at this airport and 50 at that airport and another 100 over here, and they were all caught unawares after the order, what’s that tell you?
2. If there is somehow chaos at the border because the status quo has been so disrupted, what’s that tell you?
I’ll give you a hint. It means that the influx of people is far more massive than you knew.
While many scream that we should prove a good reason why we would say no to those poor, innocent people, I posit that the question is framed incorrectly (and was phrased that way because we don’t own that narrative).
What we should be asking is “Why should we?” Why should we allow anyone from these countries here? Why should we have to justify not allowing people into this country? Why do we allow others to flip the script and put us on the defensive?
I’m not a Trump fan. That’s no secret. But the ban on refugees from Syria is a good thing. In fact, I think he should have shut down 100% of all immigration for a set amount of time, period. Our jobs, our resources, etc. We don’t owe the world a living, or anything else. It’s not our job to prove why they shouldn’t be allowed in. It’s their burden of proof to show why they should be allowed in.
Then again, John Robb is right. The US is running in open loop anyway.