IT'S JUST HATE:

[T]here was no evidence when he wrote those words that the terror attack on London Bridge was carried out by citizens of Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen, the six countries affected by the ban. Indeed, there have been no terror attacks carried out anywhere in the West this year by citizens of those states. Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber, was of Libyan extraction. He was born in Britain and was a British citizen, and, therefore, would have been free to travel to the United States even if the travel ban were in effect.

The original justification for the executive order on January 27 was that the United States was at such heightened risk of attacks from foreign jihadists that it was necessary to place a 90-day suspension on all entry from seven Muslim countries (Iraq was later dropped from the list). The speciousness of this justification is evident from the fact that, 129 days later, there still have not been any Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States. There hasn't even been any evidence of foiled plots carried out by nationals of the six target countries.

Surely, Trump isn't claiming that we need a 90-day pause starting now because his administration hasn't been able to study the problem and issue an effective response during the previous 129 days? That would be quite an admission of failure on the administration's part. In reality, of course, all of the evidence points to the fact that our border vetting programs were already effective when Trump took office and didn't need much reform.

Tweet   @brothersjudd