New CIS Report Validates Trump’s Travel Ban

A new report released this weekend may give the Trump Administration more ammunition as it argues to reinstate the president’s controversial travel ban. 

The ban, issued on Jan. 27th, affects refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim nations. According to the report, more than 70 convicted terrorists came from these countries. Seventeen of those individuals entered the US through a refugee program Trump had already flagged as ‘concerning.’

“These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6),” reads the report.

“Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump’s order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order.”

The Center for Immigration (CIS) reports that more than 30 of the 72 convicts served at least three years in jail for their crimes. 

Crimes included “use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun,” reads the report. 

This report undermines Judge James L. Robart’s Feb. 3rd decision to issue a restraining order on the travel ban.

As I wrote earlier this week, a leftwing appeals court in California supported Robart’s decision by rejecting the Trump Administration’s request to reinstate the ban. The ensuing legal battle will likely reach the Supreme Court. 

In the meantime, refugees and visa holders from the nations specified in the ban will be allowed to travel under normal conditions. 

Judges from both courts insisted that there was not a single case in which an illegal immigrant from any of the nations specified in the order had been involved in a terrorist attack in the US.

This weekend’s report challenges that argument. 

Report author Jessica Vaughan says the judges could easily have found this information “if they or their clerks had looked for it.” 

“Since the court decided that it has the authority to look at the reasons behind a presidential executive order, the least the judges could do is perform a simple Google search,” argues Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA). 

According to The Washington Times, “Refugees from some of the countries Mr. Trump singled out as needing special scrutiny have poured into the country at a faster rate,” in the days following the 9th Circuit’s ruling. 

This represents a serious national security threat. 

Supporters of the ban argue that the president has the power to decide who can and cannot enter the country. Trump “should not have to provide any more justification than was already presented in the order,” writes Vaughan. “But if judges demand more reasons, here are 72.”