I disagree, for the reasons I stated. You are coming at this from one end, while seemingly refusing to see the blurring at the other end, that being done purportedly in the name of security.  Trump issued an executive order abruptly changing the rules for legal immigration  — which is now being litigated for the way the Trump administration chose to do it.  As I understand it, you are steadfastly for enforcing immigration laws so that people who go by the rules of law are not pre-empted by those who do not follow the rules of law. Got that. The people who were just detained at airports were following the rules — and were at the end of the process, or had already completed the process. You seem unfazed by this. I see it as treating legal immigrants as if they were something less than legal immigrants, possibly illegal immigrants, largely dependent upon our changing views of our security interests at the time.  In other words, saying someone is a legal immigrant does not necessarily mean anything in this context.

I have a few moments, and would like to extrapolate on what haresfur said regarding Trump's executive order restricting what had been legal immigration and also in response to Kurtster's expressed views.  There has been a blurring of issues pertaining to illegal immigration across the Mexican border and the vetting of refugees and other immigrants coming to America through legal immigration channels.  The problems associated with illegal immigration across the Mexican border have been with us for decades now.  It ebbs and flows, but it has never stopped, and the problems associated with it, and the possible remedies for those problems,  have been discussed in the context of immigration policy reform.  The threat of terrorists gaining entry to the U.S. is a more recent problem, one exacerbated by the tactics of Al Queda and now ISIS, and their  vows to bring the battle to America.  Yes, both fit under the umbrella of security, but I would say the  problems associated with each— to date — have been distinct.  Yes, there have been illegals who gained access to the United States across the Mexican border who have committed crimes while in America, but, so far, none of those have been associated with being terrorist acts.  As horrific as the killing of the young women in San Francisco by an illegal alien who came from Mexico was, it was not an act of terror directed at the United States.  From my perspective, Trump, during his campaign and continuing now, has been playing to Americans' understandable fears of terrorism by vowing to build a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration.  To the extent he has been linking the two — and I do believe he intentionally is doing so —  these really are closer to apples and oranges at the present time. Building a wall on the Mexican border will not be striking a blow against ISIS, or Al Queda.

What it might do, along with Trump's plans to roll back NAFTA, is drive a wedge between America and a large country that sits on our border, one that has been an ally, but has long fought against poverty and the instability that comes with it.  A destabilized and hostile Mexico would be a much larger threat to our security than the current flood of illegal immigrants coming across that border.  Instead of trying to alleviate any concerns or misunderstandings Mexico might have about our building this wall (or concerns they might have about a possible coming trade war with Mexico's biggest trading partner), Trump has chosen to pitch insults and provocations at the Mexicans as a campaign stunt. How else to explain his repeated vow at rallies that Mexico would pay for the wall (actually was doing it as call and response at rallies)?  These kinds of moves do not take effect, nor are they viewed, in isolation. Foreign policy is an intricate game of chess. Trump is playing checkers.  The same is true of his executive order placing temporary bans on refugees and all immigration for the 7 named countries.  The purported reason is to examine the vetting process, which has been deemed by Trump to be inadequate. As I understand it, our vetting process for refugees is the most rigorous in the world.  What specifically among the current protocols have been found suspect?  I have not heard or read any specifics. And, of course, a big chunk of frightened Americans are going to support these kind of bans —even permanent ones. But there is a price to pay for this, and the amount of increased security (lower case) must be weighed against possible decreased Security (upper case) in the aggregate and in the long run.  This executive order was not received all that well among even our allies. We can cry America First all we want, but do we expect all of these other nations and people, especially those stuck in horrific war zones, to understand and accept that they are second-class global citizens and secondary concerns in the eyes of Americans — even at a time when American policies are directly impacting them? What message is being sent when American says it will not accept refugees, that refugees from Syria and Yemen should be harbored in safe zones within their own borders, or in other Middle Eastern nations, but not in America because, obviously, it is too great a risk for America to take them in?  These are not good messages, and they ultimately will not serve America well.  And this is all from a strategic perspective; I have not even touched upon moral and ethical considerations — that whole shining light thing.