Here Is What Republican Critics of Trump's Immigration Order Are Saying

More than 40 GOP legislators complain that the new restrictions are hasty, vague, unfair, and overly broad.


White House

Last week House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) welcomed President Trump's executive order suspending admission of all refugees for 120 days, blocking Syrian refugees indefinitely, cutting this year's refugee cap in half, and banning travelers with passports from any of seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days. "It's time to reevaluate and strengthen the visa vetting process," Ryan said on Friday. "President Trump is right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was somewhat less supportive. "I don't want to criticize them for improving vetting," McConnell told ABC News on Sunday. "It's going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far."

Those comments by Republican leaders leave a misleading impression of the views among GOP legislators, which include criticism ranging from mild to harsh as well as support ranging from lukewarm to enthusiastic. As Nick Gillespie noted yesterday, opposition from Republicans is especially significant, since it shows that even members of the president's party who may agree that vetting of visitors to the U.S. should be improved think Trump has gone too far. On this subject, descriptions like "embarrassing" and "completely misses the mark" (see below) carry more weight when they come from conservative Republicans than when they come from Democrats who can be expected to denounce nearly everything Trump does.

Last night Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake counted 84 Republican members of Congress who have publicly supported Trump's order, and this statement from Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) makes it 85. Blake lists Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator who briefly ran for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination against Trump, as a legislator who has not taken a position on Trump's order. But judging from comments Paul made in an interview with talk radio host Andrew Wilkow yesterday, he should also be counted as a supporter. "If you want to be an immigrant into our country, the Constitution doesn't apply to you, and we have every right to make any immigration law we want," said Paul, who in 2015 sponsored legislation that would have temporarily banned admission of refugees from 34 "high-risk countries," almost all of them with large Muslim majorities. "Now a lot of us have the sensibility, myself included, that it shouldn't be based on religion who is admitted to the country." Trump argues that his order is based on national origin, not religion, which was also how Paul's bill was framed.

More striking is the number of Republican legislators who have criticized Trump's order: at least 41, by my count, including 14 senators and 27 representatives. The most common themes in the critical comments are that the formulation and implementation of the order were unnecessarily rushed (a point also made by some legislators who otherwise support the order), that the order was vague and should not have been applied to legal permanent residents (a policy that the Trump administration reversed on Sunday), that Trump should revise the vetting process for visitors and refugees in collaboration with Congress, that the order resembles a religious test for immigration, that the order will alienate potential Muslim allies around the world, and that Iraqis granted special visas because of the assistance they or their relatives provided to American forces could be forced to stay in a country where their lives are in danger.

Here is what Republican critics of Trump's order have said, arranged alphabetically by chamber. I have marked the strongest criticism—going beyond complaints about haste, vagueness, and the order's impact on green-card holders—with asterisks.


*Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)

This vetting proposal itself needed more vetting. More scrutiny of those traveling from war-torn countries to the United States is wise. But this broad and confusing order seems to ban legal, permanent residents with "green cards," and might turn away Iraqis, for example, who were translators and helped save lives of American troops and who could be killed if they stay in Iraq. And while not explicitly a religious test, it comes close to one, which is inconsistent with our American character.

*Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

The worldwide refugee ban set forth in the executive order is overly broad, and implementing it will be immediately problematic….It could interfere with the immigration of Iraqis who worked for American forces in Iraq as translators and bodyguards—people who literally saved the lives of our troops and diplomats during the last decade and whose lives are at risk if they remain in Iraq.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)

We all share a desire to protect the American people, but this executive order has been poorly implemented, especially with respect to green card holders. The administration should immediately make appropriate revisions, and it is my hope that following a thorough review and implementation of security enhancements that many of these programs will be improved and reinstated.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

President Trump and his administration are right to be concerned about national security, but it's unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry. Enhancing long term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.

*Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)

While I am supportive of strengthening our screening processes and securing our borders, a blanket travel ban goes too far. I also believe that lawful residents of the United States should be permitted to enter the country. I urge the administration to take the appropriate steps to fix this overly broad executive order.

*Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)

I agree that better vetting and border protection measures are necessary to our current immigration system. That's why I support the thorough vetting of individuals entering our country. However, I am deeply troubled ?by the appearance of a religious ban. ?The use of an overly broad executive order is not the way to strengthen national security. ?I encourage the Administration to partner with Congress to find a solution.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)

The mandate over the weekend was not very well vetted and the people designed to carry out the mandate didn't know what the mandate was, and when asked some of the questions it didn't sound like the White House knew what it was exactly. They've amended it a couple times already. You need to be very careful when you're issuing executive orders or passing laws that you vet them all the way through the system so you can carry them out once they're in place.

*Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.

It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump's executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.

Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.

Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

It's common sense to have appropriate vetting procedures in place for individuals wishing to travel to our country. While I support thorough vetting, I do not support restricting the rights of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Furthermore, far-reaching national security policy should always be devised in consultation with Congress and relevant government agencies.

*Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

I think it was not properly vetted. So, you have an extreme vetting proposal that didn't get the vetting it should have had. And as a result, in the implementation, we've seen some problems.…

I think we should slow down. Let's make two points. One, our country is not as safe as it should be. I'm on the Homeland Security Committee. We've had plenty of testimony in the last couple of years about the fact that there is not adequate screening, particularly on the Visa waiver programs. So I do think we need to tighten things up. And I think there's general consensus about that. Congress passed legislation to do so at the end of 2015.

But second, we have to do it in a way that's consistent with our values and consistent with our national security. We are this beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world. That's our self-image and it's also an important part of our foreign policy. So we have to do it in a way that makes sense. And we have a Cleveland Clinic doctor who, for instance, was turned away last night apparently. That's not the way to do it.

In my view, we ought to all take a deep breath and come up with something that makes sense for our national security and again for this notion that America has always been a welcoming home for refugees and immigrants. In fact, we are more welcoming than any country in the world and we should continue to be so.

*Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

The President is right to focus attention on the obvious fact that borders matter. At the same time, while not technically a Muslim ban, this order is too broad. There are two ways to lose our generational battle against jihadism by losing touch with reality. The first is to keep pretending that jihadi terrorism has no connection to Islam or to certain countries. That's been a disaster. And here's the second way to fail: If we send a signal to the Middle East that the U.S. sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion. Both approaches are wrong, and both will make us less safe. Our generational fight against jihadism requires wisdom.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

While the executive order does take immediate action aimed at tightening the refugee screening process, there is a lot of confusion surrounding the order, particularly given the instances of green card holders inexplicably being denied entry back into the United States. The order should be refined to provide more clarity and mitigate unintended consequences that do not make our country any safer.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

I support the administration's decision to increase vetting and temporarily suspend the admission of certain individuals from states that sponsor or provide safe havens to terrorists, or are too weak to prosecute terrorists within their borders….Unfortunately, the initial executive order was flawed—it was too broad and poorly explained. This apparently resulted in denied entry into the United States for lawful permanent residents and others who should have been allowed immediate entry. Fortunately, the administration has clarified that this order does not apply to green card holders and that the secretaries of state and homeland security have the ability to grant exceptions which certainly should apply to, among others, foreign nationals who served the U.S. military in various support roles.

I look forward to learning more about how the administration intends to enforce this executive order, to determine whether it indeed strikes the appropriate balance between defending our nation and maintaining our ability to provide a safe haven for persecuted individuals.


*Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.)

Like President Obama's executive actions on immigration, President Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system. It's not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.

The president's denial of entry to lawful permanent residents of the United States (green card holders) is particularly troubling. Green card holders live in the United States as our neighbors and serve in our Armed Forces. They deserve better.

I agree with the president that we must do much more to properly vet refugees, but a blanket ban represents an extreme approach not consistent with our nation's values. While the executive order allows the admittance of immigrants, nonimmigrants, and refugees "on a case-by-case basis," arbitrariness would violate the Rule of Law.

Ultimately, the executive order appears to be more about politics than safety. If the concern is radicalism and terrorism, then what about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others?

Finally, we can't effectively fight homegrown Islamic radicalism by perpetuating the "us vs. them" mindset that terrorists use to recruit. We must ensure that the United States remains dedicated to the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and liberty. It can't be stated strongly enough that capitalism creates prosperity and improves assimilation into society.

*Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.)

Surely there is a way to enhance the security at our borders without unnecessarily detaining innocent individuals who have followed the rules, stood in line, and pose no threat to our country, and I hope this Administration takes quick action to ensure that we're focused only on those who pose a threat to our safety.

*Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.)

The restrictions should not affect U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. In addition, I believe people with previously approved refugee status applications or visas should be admitted to the U.S.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)

People that have a green card supposedly already have been vetted, so there needs to be some further clarification.

*Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.)

I think the policy was poorly thought-out and badly executed, and I think it's just an embarrassment. It seemed that it was more crafted by campaign operatives than national security experts.

Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.)

As I consistently have said, I don't believe it is constitutional to ban people from our country on the basis of religion. However, I do support – and the House of Representatives has supported on a bipartisan basis – increased vetting based on national security concerns. The President's Executive Order issued yesterday went beyond the increased vetting actions that Congress has supported on a bipartisan basis and inexplicably applied to green card holders, people who are legally within our country who have followed the rules. Green card holders go through a detailed legal process and are vetted. They are required to register with the selective service – and many serve in the military. They pay taxes. I find it hard to believe that green card holders—legal permanent residents—were intended to be included in this Executive Order. This should be addressed and corrected expeditiously.

*Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.)

This is ridiculous….The order appears to have been rushed through without full consideration. You know, there are many, many nuances of immigration policy that can be life or death for many innocent, vulnerable people around the world.

*Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.)

After careful review of the recent executive order regarding immigration policy, I believe that the order was neither well drafted nor well implemented. Given recent events both here and abroad, we need to take steps to strengthen our nation's security; however, this is most effectively pursued through thoughtful and deliberative legislation. While I acknowledge that the president may act in the event of a national security threat or emergency situation, this process was rushed and led to confusion. There is no doubt that we need to thoroughly vet people coming from countries where there are strongholds of ISIS and al-Qaida. At the same time, we have to balance our security with the need to respect the rights of US citizens and people who are subject to valid immigration proceedings, including lawful permanent residents.

*Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.)

The president's policy entirely misses the mark….We were focused on solutions, not engaging in partisan attacks or declaring a singular fix to a complicated issue….Terrorism inspired by radicalism and hate is global in scope and, as such, requires a comprehensive response, not a purely regional focus. While serious actions are needed to protect our country, these must not be done in a way that singles out any specific nations or ethnicities.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)

We have always been a country that welcomes immigrants. However, it is also important to remember that national security is the number one job of the federal government. Given shortcomings in the current screening process, I joined a bipartisan House majority in supporting legislation to strengthen the vetting process for individuals seeking entry to the United States through the Visa Waiver Program or as refugees. The Executive Order signed by the president on Friday came with little clarity and caused much uncertainty for foreign travelers. Additional implementing guidance is needed to ensure that the order can be applied in a fair and equitable manner.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.)

As part of his strategy to make the safety and security of the American people his top priority, President Trump believes a pause in immigration from unstable regions is warranted. However, this weekend's confusion is an indication that the details of this executive order were not properly scrutinized. Among others, reconsideration should be given to courageous individuals who served as interpreters for our military and properly vetted refugees.

*Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.)

Our nation has a strong and principled tradition as a beacon of hope for the vulnerable and oppressed. Given the nature of the threats we face in the 21st century, I believe it is prudent to once again review and strengthen our visa screening processes to ensure those we let into our country have American interests at heart….

I believe that the vetting within the refugee program is already extensive and thorough—it is currently the most difficult and lengthy process to get into the United States, typically taking 18 months or more for a vulnerable family to survive while they wait approval to enter our country. I expect the rigor of the vetting process to be confirmed during the 120-day review of our current visa policies regarding refugees….

Unfortunately, the President's executive order is overly broad and its interpretation has been inconsistent and confused. This has led to unintended consequences, like the barring of legal permanent residents and the rejection of Syrian Christians at the airport, a religious minority that was supposed to be protected by the executive order.

Keeping America First means keeping our principles first—both compassion and security. To remain the world's shining city on a hill and beacon of hope to many, we should have our arms open to those who are fleeing oppression and seeking safety, not turning them away at the door.

*Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas)

The Executive Order banning visa adjudication from seven countries does not make us safer; rather it decreases the security of our homeland and endangers the lives of thousands of American men and women in our Military, diplomatic corps and intelligence services. There are almost 10,000 Americans serving in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. A target has been placed on their backs by increasing tensions in an already volatile region. These men and women are fighting alongside citizens of those countries in order to keep Islamic Extremists on the run and off our shores.

As an undercover CIA officer I spent most of my adult life chasing down terrorists that would do our homeland and U.S. Citizens harm, so I know how important it is to cooperate with foreign allies to get the job done. We cannot fight the scourge of Islamic Extremism alone, and to prevent terrorists from having safe havens from which to plot, plan and train for attacks on the United States, we need to work with all allies around the world. This visa ban is the ultimate display of mistrust and will erode our allies' willingness to fight with us. The ban also provides terrorists with another tool to gain sympathy and recruit new fighters.

The way to solve this problem is to continue tightening visa loopholes, ensure that the right intelligence is being shared with our allies and amongst U.S. agencies and organizations, and to use a number of tools to keep Americans from falling prey to ISIS propaganda. Several bills passed the House or Senate last Congress to address these issues, but were not signed into law. I will work to re-introduce legislation designed to keep all Americans safe, giving our President the opportunity to sign legislation that will protect our shores from those who seek to do us harm.

Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.)

I have concerns with this executive order, including the fact that it could potentially deny entrance to our country to lawful, permanent residents and dual citizens.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)

The President's recent executive order has caused confusion among those asked to enforce it, and recent media reports have muddled facts and fiction. I urge the Administration to clarify the specifics on what should and should not be done to best protect our homeland, our people, and our communities.

I support a comprehensive look at our vetting process, and I believe it's something every new administration would be expected to do. However, reports of green card holders and those who assisted us in the war on terror being denied or delayed entry is deeply concerning. Such detention is unacceptable and must be remedied immediately.

*Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.)

While I do support increased vetting of individuals applying to travel from countries with extensive terrorist ties or activity, the President's current travel ban executive order appears rushed and poorly implemented. Reports of green card holders and those who assisted us in the War on Terror being denied or delayed entry into the U.S. is deeply concerning and must be remedied immediately. It is Congress' role to amend our immigration laws and I strongly urge President Trump to work with legislators to enact a clear, effective and enhanced vetting and monitoring process.

*Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)

In light of the confusion and uncertainty created in the wake of the President's Executive Order, it is clear adjustments are needed. We should not simply turn away individuals who already have lawful U.S. visas or green cards—like those who have risked their lives serving alongside our forces overseas or who call America their home. We must be focused instead on putting in place tougher screening measures to weed out terror suspects while facilitating the entry of peaceful, freedom-loving people of all religions who see the United States as a beacon of hope. In the future, such policy changes should be better coordinated with the agencies implementing them and with Congress to ensure we get it right—and don't undermine our nation's credibility while trying to restore it.

*Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.)

Some innocent people, including some who have performed brave and valuable service to our anti-terror efforts, are having their lives needlessly disrupted. I encourage the administration to review its order in consultation with its national security team to ensure our enforcement resources are being targeted where they can be most effective and to allow those law-abiding green card holders and visa holders who clearly aren't a threat to security to return to their jobs and communities here in America.

*Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.)

I support thorough vetting of those entering our country from countries and regions posing a serious threat to Americans. But this vetting must be applied responsibly and thoughtfully, and appropriately target those who are a national security risk. Unfortunately, the President's executive order is too broad and has been poorly implemented and conceived. It is clear from the events this weekend that the executive order does not ensure that legal residents, including green card holders, and non-threats, such as those who served alongside the American military in Iraq, are treated fairly and with the dignity they deserve.

Rep. Jim Rennaci (R-Ohio)

I strongly encourage the administration to examine more closely whether it is effectual and necessary to subject green card holders from these nations to this temporary order.

*Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)

I object to the suspension of visas from the seven named countries and of the US Refugee Admissions Program because we could have accomplished our objective of keeping our homeland safe by immediate implementation of more thorough screening procedures. I do note, however, that at least some individuals will continue to be admitted during this suspension period on a case by case basis and that the suspension period is temporary. In no case should this order be applied to individuals to whom visas have already been issued, are already permanent legal US residents, or have already been granted refugee status.

Both the letter and the spirit of the rule of law, on which our liberties rest, require that we honor legal commitments and procedures established by law, including existing visas and approved refugee status, absent specific articulable reasons for reversing a prior decision. The new Administration needs to pay careful attention to crafting orders that honor existing legal commitments and existing law, in contrast to this broad brush approach which doesn't focus on the precise problems.

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.)

I'm hearing a voice of concern [from my constituents] that things are moving from weird to reckless in their view. And that even if you're going to enact this policy, the way in which it was done just seems bizarre.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)

I do not believe it is right to ban green card holders from entering the United States absent evidence of a threat, regardless of where they are from.

*Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.)

I oppose President Trump's rushed and overly broad Executive Order. On the House Armed Services Committee, I have advocated for Iraqi and Afghans who have served side by side as our allies to be prioritized to access visas. It is Congress' role to write our immigration laws and I strongly urge the President to work with Congress moving forward as we reform our immigration system to strengthen our homeland security.

*Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio)

While I agree with the President that we must improve our visa vetting process in order to better protect Americans, I believe the executive order risks violating our nation's values and fails to differentiate mainstream Islamic partners from radical Islamic terrorists—setting back our fight against radical Islam. I urge the Administration to quickly replace this temporary order with permanent improvements in the visa vetting process.

*Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)

I fully support strengthening our screening processes and securing our borders, but this Executive Order needs to be scaled back. It has created real confusion for travelers and those who enforce the laws. I have heard from a number of local folks with valid concerns for themselves or loved ones as well from global companies that have legitimate worries relating to the international travel of their employees. A wiser course would have been to work with Congress to ensure that all visitors to our nation are properly vetted with appropriate documentation. Moving forward, I will continue to advocate for common-sense, bipartisan policies that protect America but also stay true to our values.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.)

The language of the order should not apply to legal permanent residents of the United States, and if it is being enforced in any other way, the administration should step in swiftly to clarify.

NEXT: Trump Set to Become the Stingiest Refugee President of the Modern Era

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thank god! I was hoping to read about this issue some more since Reason hasn’t done much reporting on this.

    1. fucking stole my post, you sonofabitch!!

      1. I say we don’t even read the articles. Just pick the conversation up and move it as necessary.

    2. Hijacking top post, because this is important, and the flood of articles about the same topic cause other articles to get quickly shoved down:

      This argument is very weak.

      The people who succeeded at making it through America’s vetting process for immigrants legally are less likely to commit crimes than natives. They’re more likely to start businesses. They’re more likely to integrate into society. That is an argument that vetting and legal immigration works. The argument is deeply flawed because it relies on a logical fallacy: survivorship bias. You look only at the survivors of some process, and then project that experience onto everyone else who were rejected by it.

      Why do they start more businesses? Because we chose them as most likely to do so. Why do they commit less crime on average? Because we looked into the history and rejected criminals. Why do they integrate? Because we determined that they had a better likelihood of succeeding at it.

      We can do better than this. We should be rejecting these shitty arguments as proggy nonsense, but we don’t. Let’s just overwhelm Reason with bad arguments. Those will convince people for sure.

      1. We’ve got plenty of good arguments from libertarian standpoints we could be using. We don’t need proggy feels > reals sophistry to supplant Reason and, ironically, reason. We should demand better. We deserve better.

      2. I agree that what’s needed is fundamentals. The question should be how many bad ones in a random sample of muslims from a given country, not in a heavily biased sample that was carefully selected based on education, money, and family ties. Then spied on and temped with fake undercover bombs constantly..

        Freedom means accepting there will be bad effects and taking the good with the bad. Pretending it will be just good better and better still is just insulting to the other side’s intelligence. Gun rights means both more child accidents and more people defending themselves. Even with zero welfare (which is pretty much impossible anyway in this society) an open border policy would undoubtedly result in millions of migrants within a year, we’d get both economic miracles and plenty more terrorism and shantytowns all over the place.

    3. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do


  2. My proggy rooommate is complaining how his weekends are so bus now because there’s like a protest every week!

    must suck to live in a stage of constant outrage

    1. It does. As a Libertarian, I almost always find myself outraged at the shit both parties try–and often succeed–to pull. For once I would love to go to sleep at night without worrying which of my Constitutional Rights will be assaulted tomorrow.

  3. GOD I LOVE this country. 🙂

  4. God damn pick another fucking topic.

    If it werent for the comments this place would suck.

    These writers along with other journos are lazy.

    1. The writers have lost their minds and I’m unfiltering John and Amsoc.

      Nothing seems real anymore.

      1. Is this just fantasy?

        1. Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.


          1. Open your eyes

              1. First look up to the skies.

        2. It’s Groundhog Day here. Somebody make it stop.

      2. I never filtered them to begin with. I just ignore AmSoc because he’s either one of us playing the perfect socialist idiot for a gag and trolling, or an idiot arguing in bad faith, and trolling. The only thing he deserves is derision, or to be ignored entirely, depending on which belief you harbor about him.

        John is a special case (maybe a “special” case, given his mood swings). Support him when he’s acting in good faith. Pimp slap him when he isn’t. I haven’t completely given up on him because there is a kernel of reason in him which may sprout and give rise to real wisdom if we encourage it.

        1. I’m just a poor boy, nobody loves me.

          1. I’m just a poor boy, from a poor family.

        2. The real american socialist is American socialist. I took over this name because he was getting pissed at the sock puppet that changed the “L” to “I” and real amsoc went to california socialist. So i am squatting on his original name.

          Then the sock whoever that is created a spinoff of california socialist. He got pissed again and went to a different name (he had 10 other versions of california socialist) as i had tried them. He left that one and is now American socialist with a capital A

          I created an email to squat on california socialist as well

          1. In other words for the past couple years the real amsoc was american socialist (this name) but he left it. And i took it over for him. He has complained to have it back.

            You can find him now under American socialist

            1. That… explains a lot actually.

              I was reading a lot of your comments going “Wow that… actually makes sense for once, then ctrl-f searching to make sure you weren’t AmSoc with an i, and was generally confused by the sudden competency displayed.

  5. AAAAAAND THE TALLY STANDS AT (*recount update – accidentally included a couple of lynx, etc.)
    Articles about the EO: 18
    Articles not about the EO: 16 (including 4 on sanctuary cities and immigration in general)
    Let’s keep this crazy train rollin’!

    1. How many comments about the repetitiveness of coverage?

    2. All aboard! Ha ha ha ha ha….

      I’m going off the rails on this crazy train! Lyrics entirely too relevant right now.

    3. Ugh. So unoriginal. EVERYONE is complaining about the monotony of the topics chosen to report on today. You just had to add another count to the tally of comments on this same exact subject, didn’t you??

  6. Here Is What Republican Critics of Trump’s Immigration Order Are Saying
    More than 40 GOP legislators complain that the new restrictions are hasty, vague, unfair, and overly broad.

    An echo chamber of astringent fools who’d never fucking complain en masse about anything hasty, vague, overly-broad, and unfair placed on the goddamn citizens they pretend to represent.

  7. Trumpkin tears – so sweet and tasty!

  8. There are substantive criticisms to be made about the EO. It was clearly put together in a slapdash manner. It may violate the law. Including green card holders was terrible.

    That said, is this REALLY so pressing as to merit nearly two dozen posts on it over the course of a couple of days? The staff seems to be unusually motivated by this beyond what the normal response to the outrages of the day. The sheer volume of the articles suggests a rather emotional reaction, not as hysterical as on the left but definitely of the same tenor.

    1. This.

      Also they never bring up the costs of these refugee programs which are paid by taxes. And they never state their position on what is and isn’t acceptable to them…or what they propose.

  9. must suck to live in a stage of constant outrage

    I have repeatedly told these types of people (to their faces) how exhausting it must be to be so easily and perpetually offended. I recently told a girl I went to college with that I think it’s time to stop hyperventilating about Trumps pussy comments, given the context and the implication of consent (i.e. “they LET you do it”…). She actually said “Nah, I’ll keep hyperventilating.” These people are absurd.

    1. Yeah, I don’t get it. It’s not like there’s anything unusual about Trump. He’s a perfectly normal president, enacting perfectly normal policies, behaving in ways that are not at all embarrassing. Obviously, we need to increase vetting for these Muslims. How can you do a proper job of it in just ten short years? You can’t! I’m not sure what else we can do, but we definitely need more of it. These people who helped American troops, and now say their lives are in danger? Hey, they should’ve thought of that before they volunteered, right?

  10. Yep, regulations suck. Welcome to the party pal.

  11. Perhaps the strongest criticism I see is where Sullum lists, “that Trump should revise the vetting process for visitors and refugees in collaboration with Congress”.

    Establishing the uniform rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress, like the power to declare war. If congressional Republicans want to pass a bill changing the rules for asylum seekers, it is well within their power to do so.

    Moaning about what the President does from the sidelines doesn’t impress me much–when it’s in their power to change the rules whenever they want.

    1. ^This.

      Love or hate the EO frenzy, Congress can and does have the power to reign in the executive branch.

      That they failed to exercise this power over the last two administrations does not mean it no longer exists. Don’t like what Trump is doing? Pass a fucking law, don’t write some useless protest memo.

  12. Well Libs, (and cosmotarians, and RINOS), after being told that I am a Nazi, KKK, homophobe, islomophobe bigot for voting for Trump and that I deserve to die….

    I kinda don’t give a FUCK about your criticisms of his policies….

    1. This is pretty much why the establishment candidates were rejected. It was correctly perceived that they were unable or unwilling to take decisive action on issues important to large swathes of the electorate.

  13. Dear Government: We ain’t paying for you to extort us with manic hysteria of ‘terrists gonna getcha!’ any more!

    1. I don’t think you realize how many jobs rely on the multi-billion-dollar Anti-Terrorism Industry. Well, not so much jobs as profits, but you get what I mean. It’s a big part of the economy. We need some kind of enemy, and obviously, the Communist menace has dried up. Do your patriotic duty and be scared!

  14. Somebody’s bucking for a promotion. Probably that pederast Hanrahan.

    1. +8 year olds, dude.

    2. By the way, what kind of name is Poon?

      1. It’s the new flavor of Tang.

  15. Best reaction thus far has come from Rep Justin Amash’s Facebook page. It is concrete, not hyperbolic, lays out the legal problems with the EO, and his own personal ideological problems with it. It keeps outrage out of it.

    Reason would do well to observe and try to report some fucking facts and problems with Trump’s EO instead of joining the outrage train and pretending that all having to do with the refugee program is purer than Christ Himself.

    1. Yep. These appeals to emotion and sigalling are nauseating

    2. There is no problem with Trump’s EO, The US is not starving for immigrants from Somalia, Germany, or anywhere else. The US has no obligation whatsoever to take in refugees.

      Good fucking grief, Los Angles, and the surrounding area, is filled with homeless Americans. Every freeway ramp has a homeless encampment. Worrying about the plight of foreign refugees is leap-frogging over what’s in plain sight.

  16. “Dear Trumpkins: You don’t have to let them in and provide them with jobs and too-generous social services. But if you do then you ain’t gonna deport them en masse or detain them indefinitely in privately run prisons. And if you refuse to let them in you ain’t gonna keep droning their homes.” – Average decent American

  17. Almost all of these are focused on green cards and legal residents. Wasn’t that cleared up already?

  18. The only people with visas you need to be scared of are the ones who were given them by the CIA over State Dept objection.

  19. legislators complain that the new restrictions are hasty, vague, unfair, and overly broad.

    They should rewrite it as a law, and hang some dead girl’s name on it. It will pass with no opposition.

  20. More than 40 GOP legislators are cucks. Sad!

    1. They want the wombs of America shat in by the weak.

      1. You plagiarizing bastard.

        /Warren Ellis?

        1. At least someone caught the reference.

          1. I’ve also always been fond of:

            “Yes, General, I AM masturbating into the American flag again. It relaxes me. Do you have a problem with it? Would you rather I used YOU?”

  21. Boy, can’t wait to see what the Reason donation drive is like next year…

    1. It’ll be yuuuuuge.

  22. Oh goody. Another article on Trump.

    1. They think the way to defeat a troll is by engaging it. Starve the beast.

    2. Articles on Trump are fine. Articles with the exact same bleating about this one fucking subject over and over and over again are tiresome.

      1. I know. It’s not like Trump doesn’t do a half-dozen crazy things per day. All journalists need do are follow one of the many shiny objects cast from the White House, each and every day. No need to focus on “meaty” stories.

    3. By the end of the day, we’ll all be talking about the Supreme Court, and this morning’s topic will seem like last week.

    4. Got your pageview, didn’t it?

  23. “If you want to be an immigrant into our country, the Constitution doesn’t apply to you, and we have every right to make any immigration law we want,” said Paul

    The Constitution applies to government, not to people. It imposes protections for rights that already exist. Each human individual of will is born with his or her rights, not conferred or bestowed graciously by the State to each of us stoopid, little people, despite what the Trumpistas would like to think.

    1. Certainly, the First Amendment applies to the government.

      Discriminating against one religion or favoring another is establishment.

    2. You think foreigners have a constitutional right to immigrate to the US without any restriction whatsoever?

      1. He didn’t say that.

        He said that the Constitution applies to the government, and the First Amendment is an excellent example of that.

        So long as we’re talking about the U.S. government, it is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion by the First Amendment.

        And there isn’t anything in there about whether the subjects are U.S. citizens.

        Do you imagine the government doesn’t need to respect the Fifth Amendment when tourists are accused of a crime?

        1. The issue is not what happens once people are here, it’s whether the government can set whatever standards it deems necessary to allow people to come here in the first place. And the constitution says they can.

          1. And the statement that the Constitution doesn’t apply to immigrants is demonstrably false. OldMexican was responding to that statement.

      2. “You think foreigners have a constitutional right to immigrate to the US without any restriction whatsoever?”

        No. What we’re saying is, an eight to ten year vetting process simply isn’t extreme enough. We need extreme vetting. And until we can figure out exactly what we mean by that, these Muslims can just sit there and wait.

    3. well it applies to people in that it protects their rights from the govt. Whereas it may not give that same protection to all people.

      1. The only rights they don’t necessarily have are the right to be here, the right to vote, and the right to hold office.

    4. In context, I think he was saying that the discrimination provisions (particularly nation of origin) should not apply, since the result would be nonsensical.

      Why even even bother engaging in combat to invade the US if you can send all your soldiers and claim that (a) you have the right to send as many of your people as possible, because a restriction would be discrimination, and (b) they can all be armed, because the Constitution restricts the government from passing any law that would take der gunz, as much as any citizen. The Constitution is a contract between an agent (the feds) and a group of principals (the states and the people). The obligations of the agent to third parties will necessarily be restricted.

  24. In the 1970s communists would hijack US commercial airplanes loaded with passengers and land in Cuba. This was a hit news item whenever it happened.

    No mass security details were arranged at airports to mitigate this problem. There was a slight chance, on a flight from New York to Miami, you would land in Havana. And the US, even Jimmy Carter, would have nuked Cuba if the passengers were not been immediately returned.

    This asymmetry of power no longer exists and no military build-up will recreate it.

  25. A little disappointed with Rand Paul on this one. But I think he might just be laying low this week. We shall see….

  26. Notable absence of Rand on this list gives me a sad.

    1. He was in favor of it when he was running for President. And why would he want his name on the same list as McCain and Collins?

  27. Trumpistas of every ilk have been defending this travel ban by stating categorically that this is not a Muslim ban. The folks at Trump News insist that this is not a Muslim ban and as a way to emphasize this, they bring the point of all those Christian and Yazidi refugees who were turned away at airports in Europe and elsewhere, as if that particular tragedy was not grating by itself.

    However, this morning, on Trump & Friends (o, Fox & Friends), ex-combat veteran Pete Hegseth was making the point through interviews with Muslims in Minnesota that Muslims from countries like Somalia and others don’t assimilate (meaning, they don’t learn English or embrace American culture instantly) which makes me wonder: Wasn’t the point of the ban that it is NOT a Muslim ban? So why are these Trumpistas making sure we do not forget just how recalcitrant and backward are these Muslims?

    Of course, just like their brethren on the socialist left, the socialists on the right – Trumpistas – are not too keen on logical consistency.

    1. Did Hegseth explicitly tie those two issues together? Or is this one of those “dog whistle” things?

    2. Personally I hate when the media twists the facts to impose their bias. Calling it a “muslim ban” is a half truth to make it sound worse. It doesn’t ban most of those countries, just a temporary stay. It doesn’t apply to all muslims. The left and the media will continue to create these arguments as long as it continues to tell half-truths. Why not just be honest and call it precisely what it is?

    3. So, because Muslims from countries like Somalia have trouble assimilating, and the temporary ban includes Somalians, but exclude many other types of Muslim, the takeway is that it is a Muslim ban?

      Bro, do you even logic?

  28. Hey Jacob,

    How does the party of tyranny, the Democrats, line up on Trump’s EO? Can you post some of the things they’ve been saying? You might want to break the article up into two or more parts.

  29. Boy, I sure wish we were back to arguing about email security and how HRC killed those guys in Benghazi. Arguing about how the current President is a bonafide fascist and how the last one wasn’t is very depressing.

    1. Arguing about how the current President is a bonafide fascist

      Man, you get really good Internet from the concentration camp. Tell me, what color is the triangle you were forced to sew into your clothing?

  30. Wow, I really needed to know how John McCain and Susan Collins felt before forming my own opinion.

  31. All I know is Trump deliberately waited until late on a Friday afternoon – the news dump hour – to pull this shit without giving anybody a heads-up. He knew damn well when the order came down to the frontline troops there were no bosses in any offices any of the peons could reach to tell them what to do and the whole thing was a clusterfuck of headless chickens running around with their thumbs up their asses looking for somebody to tell them what to do. Trump deliberately went out of his way to maximize the clusterfuckery of the whole damn thing and my guess is just because he thought it would be funny as hell to do it that way and the more people he could inconvenience and fuck with the funnier. He’s a troll.

  32. American government has arbitrarily gone back on its word (refusing entry to GC and visa holders without fair warning). This only means the rest of the world would trust American government less and less.

    USA isn’t the strong country it use to be with China being on its heels. In the next 20 years USA will have to default on its debts and it will need friends. This sort of shit isn’t winning any friends.

    1. If America defaults the rest of the world is screwed, our friends will be screwed and our enemies will be screwed. So accepting the refugees or not accepting the refugees won’t matter a bit. I am guessing they will fall to the back of the line of general concern.

  33. Yep, just as I expect every time I read these so-called “libertarian” comments sections, most of you just prove my point that said forums are merely a haven teeming with very angry, juvenile, conservative Republican, faux libertarians who, like your new hero Trump The Hump, act on raw, negative emotion rather than intellect. The genuine libertarian movement has unfortunately been hijacked by assholes. Speaking of which, I’ve a suggestion for you people (there’s Ross Perot again). If you want to hear the right-wing, Republican talking points that give comfort to your HUUUGE egos, go to the assholes at Faux News and the other unhinged, wingnut sites where there is also a dearth of “reason.”

  34. Good for Justin Amash, as he sounds very, as you people would put it, “proggy,” on this one. It’s just too bad that he doesn’t also point out that the countries not on the list are some of those with which Trump The Hump has business dealings.

  35. Oh no there are back biting Republican’s oh the shock.

  36. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

  37. Those comments by Republican leaders leave a misleading impression of the views among GOP legislators, which include criticism ranging from mild to harsh as well as support ranging from lukewarm to enthusiastic. As Nick Gillespie noted yesterday, opposition from Republicans is especially significant, since it shows that even members of the president’s party who may agree that vetting of visitors to the U.S. should be improved think Trump has gone too far. On this subject, ????? ???? ????
    ????? ??? descriptions like “embarrassing” and “completely misses the mark” (see below) carry more weight when they come from conservative Republicans than when they come from Democrats who can be expected to denounce nearly everything Trump does.

  38. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her check was $21762 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can find out more


  39. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

  40. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do


  41. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

  42. Great info! I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. Thanks

    Puzzle Games

  43. This is such, such, such Good News! Thank you for sharing it in this awesomely creative way. am thrilled to share further!

    Arcade Games

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.