This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/trumps-immigration-ban-disapproval-applause.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trump’s Immigration Ban Draws Disapproval and Applause Trump’s Immigration Ban Draws Deep Anger and Muted Praise
(about 4 hours later)
An evangelical Christian group said it was an affront to human dignity. A group of Nobel Prize winners said it would damage American leadership in higher education and research. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said it was right on target. A group of Nobel Prize winners said it would damage American leadership in higher education and research. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and some relatives of Americans killed in terrorist attacks said it was right on target. An evangelical Christian group called it an affront to human dignity.
The reaction on Saturday to President Trump’s ban on refugees entering the United States, with particular focus on Muslim countries in the Middle East, was swift, certain — and divided. The reaction on Saturday to President Trump’s ban on refugees entering the United States, with particular focus on certain Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, was swift, certain — and sharply divided.
It drew sharp and widespread condemnation Saturday from Democrats, religious groups, business leaders, academics and others, who called it inhumane, discriminatory and akin to taking a “wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty.” The order drew sharp and widespread condemnation Saturday from Democrats, religious groups, business leaders, academics and others, who called it inhumane, discriminatory and akin to taking a “wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty.” Thousands of professors from around the country, including several Nobel laureates, signed a statement opposing the president’s action and calling it a “major step towards implementing the stringent racial and religious profiling promised on the campaign trail.”
Thousands of professors from around the country, including several Nobel Prize winners, signed a statement opposing the president’s action and calling it a “major step towards implementing the stringent racial and religious profiling promised on the campaign trail.” Some universities and colleges warned students and professors from some Muslim-majority countries not to travel abroad, for fear that they would not be able to return. At a news conference in Paris, the foreign ministers of France and Germany, Jean-Marc Ayrault and Sigmar Gabriel, said they were worried by the restrictions. “Welcoming refugees who flee war and oppression is part of our duty,” Mr. Ayrault said.
At a news conference in Paris, the foreign ministers of France and Germany, Jean-Marc Ayrault and Sigmar Gabriel, said they were worried by the restrictions. “Welcoming refugees who flee war and oppression is part of our duty,” Mr. Ayrault said. And immigration policy experts questioned the logic behind the action, some of them noting that terrorists who have carried out attacks in the United States have not entered as refugees, and that Muslim attackers have been people who were born here or came from countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia — which are not on the list of seven countries being singled out. Immigration policy experts questioned the logic behind the action. They noted that terrorists who had carried out attacks in the United States had not entered as refugees, and that Muslim attackers had been people who were born here or came from countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia — which were not on the list of seven mostly Muslim countries that the administration has singled out for a complete halt to entry into the country. “Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote on the group’s website.
“Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote on the group’s website. Kathleen Newland, a senior fellow and co-founder of the Migration Policy Institute, a research group, said the new policy “will do damage not only to tens of thousands of refugees, but also to the reputation of this country as a reliable partner in the global humanitarian system.”
But the president’s executive order, issued on Friday, brought a more positive, if muted, reaction from Republicans, and could prove popular politically. During the presidential campaign, public opinion polls showed that about half of Americans favored the broader, more bluntly religion-based measure Mr. Trump originally called for, a ban on Muslims entering the country. “I feel that it’s a necessary step for us to take for the security of our nation,” said Michael Banerian, 22, the youth vice chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, who was a Trump delegate at last year’s Republican National Convention. “I don’t think it’s un-American. I think it’s very reasonable.” But the president’s executive order, issued on Friday, brought a positive, if more muted, reaction from Republicans, and could prove popular politically. During the presidential campaign, public opinion polls showed that about half of Americans favored the broader, more bluntly religion-based measure Mr. Trump originally called for, a ban on Muslims entering the country.
The president’s action put an indefinite halt to citizens of Syria, a country racked by civil war and an immense refugee crisis, entering the United States. It suspended immigration for 90 days from countries linked to terrorism that the State Department said would mean seven Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Michael Banerian, 22, who was a Trump elector in the Electoral College, and is the youth vice chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, said he saw the president’s more narrowly tailored order as common sense. “I feel that it’s a necessary step for us to take for the security of our nation,” he said. “I don’t think it’s un-American. I think it’s very reasonable.”
It also suspended the nation’s program for admitting refugees from anywhere in the world for 120 days, while the government comes up with a stricter process for vetting them, but allowed for exceptions for persecuted religious minorities, like Christians in Muslim countries. Mr. Trump said the moves were needed to protect the United States from the infiltration by “radical Islamic terrorists.” Speaker Ryan released a statement saying, “President Trump is right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country.” Kathleen Ganci, 67, whose husband, Peter J. Ganci, the highest-ranking uniformed officer of the New York City Fire Department, was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said she supported the order “because I know the pain that can be caused if even one person gets through.”
The response from Democrats, however, was scathing. “This administration has mistaken cruelty for strength and prejudice for strategy,” said Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House minority leader. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote on the site that the nation should “keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” adding, “that’s who we are.” “I don’t care how difficult it makes it for these people to come over,” she said. “I don’t want other Americans to go through what I did — because we have to care for our own first, before we care for others.”
In interviews, news conferences and petitions, religious leaders criticized what they called a decision to give preference to Christian refugees while barring Muslims. The president’s action poses a particular challenge to Christian leaders who have hailed his anti-abortion stances, and whose followers have largely supported Mr. Trump, but whose organizations are among the most active on behalf of refugees. Most of the groups that the government uses to resettle refugees are religious. “Any limitation against any vulnerable population is to fly in the face of human dignity, of people made in the image of God,” said Scott Arbeiter, the president of World Relief, a charity affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals. The executive order put an indefinite halt to citizens of Syria, a country racked by civil war and an immense refugee crisis, entering the United States. It suspended immigration for 90 days from countries linked to terrorism that the State Department said would mean seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It also suspended the nation’s program for admitting refugees from anywhere in the world for 120 days, while the government comes up with a stricter process for vetting them, but allowed for exceptions for persecuted religious minorities, like Christians in Muslim countries.
Mr. Trump said the moves were needed to protect the United States from the infiltration by “radical Islamic terrorists.” Speaker Ryan released a statement saying, “President Trump is right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country.”
Many other leading congressional Republicans did not make statements on the matter, including Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, whose aides said he had no plans to do so on Saturday. As reports began accumulating of legal migrants being stopped at airports in response to the president’s order, some Republican aides on Capitol Hill started grumbling privately about how little the White House was defending its own policy.
The response from Democrats, however, was scathing. “This administration has mistaken cruelty for strength and prejudice for strategy,” said Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House minority leader. On Twitter, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, wrote: “To my colleagues: don’t ever again lecture me on American moral leadership if you chose to be silent today.”
The reaction was also largely negative from leaders of Silicon Valley, which relies heavily on employees from abroad, and has many companies founded or headed by immigrants or their children. A Google representative said, “We’re concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the U.S.”
Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, a United States citizen who was born in India, sent a memo to the company’s work force, saying that as many as 187 of its employees who happened to be overseas were affected by the travel restrictions. In the memo, first reported by Bloomberg News, Mr. Pichai urged affected employees to contact Google’s security team, noting that one person rushed back from New Zealand before the order was signed.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote on the site that the nation should “keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help.”
Some colleges and universities had urged students who might be affected by Mr. Trump’s policies to return to the United States before inauguration day if they were abroad, or to remain in the country if they were already here.
The seven countries covered by the temporary ban on entry to the United States have about 13,000 citizens who are college or graduate students in the United States, said the American Council on Education, the largest association of those schools. The group said it was unclear how many were stuck abroad. “The challenge is, it is clearly up to the federal government to decide how to safeguard our nation, but at the same time, it is in America’s interest to remain the destination of choice for the world’s students and scholars,” said Terry W. Hartle, the group’s executive vice president.
In interviews, news conferences and petitions, many religious leaders criticized what they called a decision to give preference to Christian refugees.
The president’s action poses a particular challenge to Christian leaders who have hailed his anti-abortion stances, and whose followers have largely supported Mr. Trump, but whose organizations are among the most active on behalf of refugees. Most of the groups that the government uses to resettle refugees are religious. “Any limitation against any vulnerable population is to fly in the face of human dignity, of people made in the image of God,” said Scott Arbeiter, the president of World Relief, a charity affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals.
Jen Smyers, director of policy and advocacy for the immigration and refugee program of Church World Service, said that the executive order was “akin to President Trump taking a wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty.”Jen Smyers, director of policy and advocacy for the immigration and refugee program of Church World Service, said that the executive order was “akin to President Trump taking a wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty.”
Church World Service, which is one of nine refugee resettlement agencies in the United States, said on Friday night that it had 212 refugees booked to travel and now suspended, including 164 people who were set to join family members already in the United States. Muslim organizations said that Mr. Trump’s actions fed into a false narrative that Americans should fear every Muslim. They said they anticipated it would lead to broader discrimination against American Muslims, who are already experiencing a spike in harassment, hate crimes and vandalism of their mosques.
The move pained Jewish leaders, many who noted that it fell on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Mr. Trump’s order reminded them of how the United States had turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust.
Joyce Dubensky, chief executive officer of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding in New York, said, “then and now, such policies — even if short-lived — can amount to a death sentence.”