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 1 Version 2
Trump’s Immigration Ban Draws Deep Anger and Muted Praise Trump’s Immigration Ban Draws Deep Anger and Muted Praise
(about 3 hours later)
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.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 certain Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, was swift, certain — and sharply 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.
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.” 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, including several Nobel laureates, signed a statement calling it a “major step towards implementing the stringent racial and religious profiling promised on the campaign trail.”
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. Protesters gathered at airports to demand the release of people who were being held on arrival while immigration officials tried to determine whether they were barred by the executive order.
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. And around the world, allies and critics alike voiced concern about what the new American policy could mean.
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.” Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the executive order “a clear insult to the Islamic world,” a violation of international law, and “a great gift to extremists and their supporters.” It warned that Iran “will take reciprocal measures in order to safeguard the rights of its citizens.”
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. Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesman for the United Nations, said, “We hope that these measures are temporary, as refugee protection needs have never been greater.” And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada used his Twitter feed to reiterate his government’s open policy toward refugees, particularly those from Syria.
“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith,” Mr. Trudeau wrote. “Diversity is our strength.”
International reaction, though, was far from uniform. Politicians who have called for restricting Muslim immigration have gained support in a number of European countries, and one of them, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, praised Mr. Trump on Twitter: “I would do the same. Hope you’ll add more Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia soon.”
Still, some immigration policy experts in the United States 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 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 halt to entry.
“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.
The president’s executive order, issued on Friday, brought a positive, if muted, reaction from some Republicans, and could prove popular politically.
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.”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.”
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.” Kathleen Ganci, 67, whose husband, Peter J. Ganci, the highest-ranking uniformed officer of the New York Fire Department, was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said she supported the order, too.
“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.”“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.”
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. And Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that seeks to restrict immigration, said it makes sense to suspend the refugee program temporarily, examine it, “and at least begin to initiate some changes.”
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.” “I don’t know what form those changes will take, and I’m not sure the administration knows yet,” he said.
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 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 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.
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.” Mr. Trump said the moves were needed to protect the United States from infiltration by “radical Islamic terrorists.” Mr. 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.
By Saturday afternoon, members of Congress were beginning to hear from constituents whose friends or relatives were detained at airports.
Two Republicans who did not support Mr. Trump’s candidacy, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, criticized Mr. Trump’s action. Mr. Sasse called the order overly broad, saying that it risks playing into the hands of jihadist groups that portray the United States as anti-Muslim.
Mr. Dent said he was awakened by his college-aged son, whose Syrian-American friend had six family members being held at Philadelphia’s airport on Saturday morning, though they had valid documents to enter the country. The congressman said despite his attempts to intervene with government officials, the family was placed on a flight bound for Qatar.
“This is ridiculous,” he said. “The order was rushed through without any nuances toward immigration policy, and this can be life or death for some people.”
The response from Democrats 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.”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. Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, a naturalized 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 were affected by the travel restrictions.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote on the site that the nation should “keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help.” In a note to his employees, Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, said, “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do.” Mr. Trump’s order, he said, “is not a policy we support.”
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. Facebook’s 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.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.
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.”
Meanwhile, as reports circulated about travelers being stopped upon arrival, protests broke out at several airports, including San Francisco International Airport, Dulles Airport outside Washington and Kennedy in New York.
By sundown the boisterous crowd at Kennedy’s Terminal 4 had grown to several hundred, spread along the parking apron, the ramp to the elevator and on three floors of the adjoining parking deck.
Jacki Esposito, an immigration lawyer from Brooklyn, said of the officials deciding the refugees’ fate: “We want to let them know we are watching.”