I haven't followed the immigration order as much as I ought, but I had to listen to a man I respect express concern with it because, among other things, it hurts the farmers. I didn't know what to say in response, so I just cried.
Although I strongly support the curtailment of Muslim immigration (and yes, because of radical Islam beliefs, not just because their countries don't have adequate vetting measures), the order apparently banned people who had helped our country's war efforts in those countries. That's terrible.
NBC News yesterday noted that the Department of Homeland Security was no longer enforcing Trump's order. The headline and the article were written to give the impression that Trump's own people were rejecting the order: "[T]he department's decision to overturn the policy essentially backs up federal court Judge James L. Robart." For Pete's sake. The DHS isn't enforcing the policy because of the judge's order. The article itself eventually acknowledges this, but not until the very end. The disingenuousness of the mainstream media is simply appalling.
If you want a good, measured analysis of the immigration ban, the National Catholic Register has provided it.
My bottom line on Muslim immigration: When you see what Europe has done to itself, I can't even fathom how it's reasonable to allow mass Muslim immigration. I think the only two reasonable policy positions are: (1) No Muslims, period (the Japan approach), or (2) Limited Muslim immigration. And when does "limited" turn into "mass" immigration? I really have no idea. The answer is, "It becomes 'mass' when we can no longer safely admit them," but in light of the tangible threat that Muslims will become radicalized once they're already here, I don't know how this can ever be accomplished.