A defense of Trump’s refugee order

By Daniel Brockman

Staff Writer


Only a week after inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that severely changed the refugee and immigration process in America. The order cut back the amount of refugees accepted into America from 100,000 to 50,000, and temporarily halted immigration from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, while completely stopping immigration from Syria. In similar fashion to his campaign, to say this order caused controversy is a huge understatement. Protesters rebelled against the order, and ultimately it was shot down by courts across the country. The order was reintroduced on March 6, but was again halted by courts.

What these refugee sympathizers don’t understand is how harmful refugees can be to communities and countries. Obviously not all refugees are bad people, but those who do have ill intentions are common among the refugees who are accepted.

In an interview with Yahoo on Feb. 9, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad warns there are terrorists mixed in with the refugees.

“Those terrorists in Syria, holding the machine gun and killing people, are peaceful refugees in Europe,” Assad said in a video of the interview that was posted to YouTube.

To see how bad importing refugees can get, just look at Sweden. The country has accepted huge amounts of refugees from multiple Middle Eastern countries over the last few years, and the consequences have been terrible.

The Swedish government refuses to reveal accurate numbers of refugee crime rates, making it impossible to fully pinpoint what’s been happening. However, what statistics we can see show a grim reality.

According to a 2012 BBC News article, “The Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences – about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants – of any force in Europe, in 2010. The second-highest in the world.”

Swedish citizens should be furious about their total mistreatment, and maybe they are, but they can’t share it.  According to a report by Fria Tider, a Swedish-based news agency, a law passed in December 2014 that bans sharing criticism of Sweden’s immigration policy online. It’s no wonder why more citizens of Sweden don’t speak out against the horrid refugee crisis: they can’t.

Even with the limited number of refugees we’ve accepted into America, the results have been mediocre at best. According to the Office for Refugee Resettlement annual report to Congress in 2013, 91.4% of Middle-Eastern refugees use food stamps, while 73.1% use Medicaid. Putting refugees into a situation where they can’t sufficiently provide for themselves is not helpful, let alone compassionate.

To say the order was perfect would be a lie. Saudi Arabia is notorious for harboring terrorists, including those responsible for 9/11, yet Saudi Arabia was excluded from the travel ban.

In fact, decreasing the amount of accepted refugees to 50,000 is not doing enough.

What the order does right is giving government agencies time to form an improved refugee policy, while keeping our country safe. Taking in refugees who are ultimately incompatible with our country is not a good idea, let alone a solution. Trump’s order was flawed, but not a failure.