Charity and Prudence on Immigration by David Montgomery


How to deal with the threat of enemies infiltrating the United States under the guise of refugees is a question without easy answers. It is a classic case of reconciling the virtues of charity and prudence. No one would give a stranger a key to their house and let them live in their spare bedroom without checking them out, nor is there any Christian doctrine that demands that naïveté. Of saints and martyrs, perhaps, but not of ordinary men and women. Yet we are also instructed: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” (Heb 13:2) A satisfactory resolution is to ask questions first and to keep the guests in a safe place while they dine.

The state has a primary duty to assure the wellbeing of its people, and has authority to do things that individuals may not. That does not mean ignoring the needs of others, but it gives prudence and practical judgment an even higher priority. In a fallen world, no good deed necessarily results in good outcomes, and this is particularly true when nations fail to exercise prudence in their relations with the rest of the world. For my part, I could not devise a materially better way to reconcile prudence and charity in light of the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Depicting the Executive Order on immigration as closing the borders of the United States is preposterous. It is selective, time-limited, based on facts and an assessment of a clear and present threat, includes waiver authority, and is directed at potential enemies who could exploit our good intentions to do us harm. It even sets out what would make entry from any country possible in the future.

Nor is it true, as some critics seem to imply, that the United States left its doors wide open until January 27, 2017. Exactly 100 years ago, Congress passed the first broadly restrictive immigration act, and entry into the US has been limited and based on criteria ever since. FDR failed miserably by every test of morality and statesmanship when he and Churchill refused to bring in Jewish refugees from the Holocaust. The Immigration Act of 1965 replaced national quotas with preference for family reunification. It shifted origins from Europe to Asia and Latin America and reduced quotas for a large number of countries to near zero. President Obama himself suspended entry from the same list of countries for six months and then limited the number of refugees after re-vetting applicants.

The text of the order matters. Here are some actual statements in the order that have been misrepresented or ignored in most press reports and editorials:

The order states that:

… the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

How could anyone fail to applaud this policy statement? Indeed, it explicitly protects the LGBT and feminist factions that are constantly accusing the President of discrimination. It is about time we labeled bigotry, hatred and persecution practiced in other countries and by religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition as what they are.

The order also provides that individuals will be allowed to enter only if it is possible to obtain sufficient information to determine whether or not they would be a threat. This seems to me to be a fully justified act of prudence. Thus there will be

… a review to determine the information needed from any country … to determine that the individual … is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

The order then proceeds to discuss how “… countries that do not provide adequate information” will be identified. Nowhere does the order announce a ban on Moslem immigrants nor does it name any country except Syria. Instead it makes reference to a list compiled under President Obama of countries that represent exceptional security risks. A list to which no one objected before President Trump acted on it.

The much-maligned temporary ban on entry from hotbeds of Islamic radicalism is intended to give time to determine which countries provide adequate information, and in the confident conclusion that those seven do not. Moreover, it provides that visas may be issued “on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest” to individuals from those countries seeking entry.

And in the case of refugees, it remedies the inexplicable discrimination against Christian refugees carried out under President Obama. The welcome words of the order are

“…admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, … but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.”

Facts also matter. First, no word in the order instructs anyone to ignore or violate any law. Instead, it instructs all officials to enforce immigration laws vigorously, thus reversing the order of President Obama that the law be ignored. Second, Europe has faced increased crime, antisocial behavior, and terrorist attacks from immigrants from the same countries subject to the order. A high proportion of refugees now moving into and through Europe are military age males, especially in the cohort from Syria, and both ISIS and Iran have announced that they are infiltrating soldiers and terrorists with the refugees. And we need to worry about the numbers of immigrants from the breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism and how they can be assimilated. This we must do to avoid creating zones like those in France where police cannot go and Sharia law is enforced, remembering that Sharia law itself justifies violence against women, gays, and Moslems who convert to another religion.

There are some issues that could have been handled better. I believe that if someone is in danger because of aiding our military overseas, we owe them refuge. But even there prudence demands we make sure about their loyalties. From reports of returning soldiers, this kind of justice for people who helped them was slow and inconsistent under President Obama. President Trump could make it better, by giving the Secretary of Defense full authority over such cases.

There are good reasons why an order like this one needs to go into effect immediately, to avoid a rush of those who will no longer qualify to enter, but it could have been less disruptive if the procedures for waivers had been set out in advance and delegated as far as possible. That would have eliminated the flap about visitors in transit and green card holders that has led to so many false tears. The urgency might not have been as great had President Obama not expunged the existing list of suspected terrorists as a parting gift to the nation.

So I would challenge those who are demonstrating and otherwise expressing outrage at this order. If you are advocating open borders so that anyone can enter and live in the United States without review or hindrance, then say so. If you are opposed to the President, then state why and don’t use this Order as an excuse to condemn him. If you believe it arises from some ill-will toward Muslims, check out the similar order issued by President Obama in 2015. If you have a different solution to the dilemma of generosity versus security, then state it and defend it with facts and logic. I look forward to a discussion with you.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

Letters to Editor

  1. Matthew Daley says:

    Very well reasoned. Bravo.

  2. Fletcher R, Hall says:

    Well stated.

    • Steve Payne says:

      “an assessment of a clear and present threat” This hasn’t been offered by the Trump adm. The courts have cited that.

      “President Obama himself suspended entry from the same list of countries for six months and then limited the number of refugees after re-vetting applicants.”
      Not true

      “… the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”
      This is only mentioned and the order goes way beyond this.

      ” thus reversing the order of President Obama that the law be ignored”
      Obama actually increased vetting during his term and we did it.

      “had President Obama not expunged the existing list of suspected terrorists as a parting gift to the nation.”
      This is based on a claim by Philip Haney. A pretty strange guy.

      I would file this under propaganda

  3. Deirdre LaMotte says:

    The refugees, green card and visa holders are put through arduous back ground and security testing. No one is being let in who
    should not be admitted. This Muslim ban is not only unconstitutional but has caused national security damage to our country.
    It is an embarrassment and frankly freightening that this ridiculous order was issued without properly vetting it with advisors…
    like the Secrtary of Defense or Homeland Security. And having the German Chancellor have to explain much of this to Trump
    as far as its legality is laughable; I’m sure she had difficulty keeping a straight face while on the phone with him.

  4. David Montgomery says:

    My thanks to Mr. Daley and Mr. Hall for their kind words. Ms LaMotte, as I stated in my column, I see no basis for calling this a Muslim ban. To repeat, the countries affected contain only a small fraction of the population of the Moslem world, and it was President Obama who first identified them as exceptional security risks. He instituted a ban on entry from those countries of even longer duration with no objection that he was anti-Muslim or embarrassing the United States. President Trump’s order limits entry based on the governance of countries of origin and potential hostility of their citizens, not religion. Even so, the teaching, doctrine and praxis of certain Islamic sects are intrinsically hostile to the US and all civilized values, and we would have every security justification for excluding their adherents — just as we exclude members of other subversive or violent organizations. I have yet to see any reason given for the claim that President Trump’s actions are unconstitutional. The Executive Branch has broad discretion over entry and Constitutional protections apply only to those within the borders of the United States. Finally, you make an odd choice of Angela Merkel as an expert on the U.S. Constitution and the benefits of a large influx of refugees. I doubt her qualifications as the former, and she is backing away as rapidly as she can from her own open border policies.

    • Deirdre LaMotte says:

      The German Chancellor had to explain that his executive order violated the Geneva refugee convention, something he would have known had he
      done his homework. But, of course, Trump wouldn’t care. There is the problem.

  5. Beryl Smith says:

    Mr. Montgomery, like so many other Trump tooters fails to recall that even Rudy Giuliani mentioned that when first proposed to him by Trump it was how to make a Muslim ban that could be made legal. In other words, in case Mr. Montgomery fails to understand this–how can we keep Muslims out but have a law that we can use to do that job! In my many travels through countries with Muslim populations I have only been met with hospitality and friendliness. I would not credit Isis with true adherence to the Muslim religion. Yes, they are dangerous, and this ban makes them even more so as they recruit those who may have been on the fence about the US intentions. This ban only incites fear in the US for the unknown and fear in the world for what will come next.

  6. David Montgomery says:

    To me, legality is determined by US immigration laws. Articles 1F and 9 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which deal respectively with criminal backgrounds and national security, seem to me to allow the measures in the Order. In light of this, the announcement by her press representative that Ch. Merkel had to “explain” the Convention to Pres Trump was at best presumptuous or more likely a creative interpretation intended, as you say, to embarrass President Trump.

    • Steve Payne says:

      There is also an immigration law that forbids you can’t discriminate against people based on country of origin.

  7. Jamie Kirkpatrick says:

    There are two facets of Mr. Trump’s Executive Order that are in question: its Constitutionality and its implications for national security. With regard to the former, the Executive Order seems to violate at least two Constitutional standards: due process and freedom of religion. While I agree the order is not a “Muslim ban,” it is nevertheless of interest to note that while Muslims from the seven named countries would be excluded, non-Muslim minorities from those same countries may be admitted. How is this not a religious litmous test? (Moreover, that Saudi Arabia was not among the countries affected by the ban seems, at the very least, highly questionable given that Saudi nationals masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, Mr. Trump’s substantial business ties to the Kingdom brings violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution clearly into question.)

    With regard to due process, the hasty and poorly implemented rollout of the Order clearly did not provide for any reasonable amount of due process. Thank God for the courts and our “so-called” judges! (Mr. Trump’s characterization of a federally appointed judge as “so-called” only reinforces his lackluster image.)

    Finally, with regard to national security implications, I am persuaded that the Order does more harm than good. Foreign nationals who have helped our troops and refugees fleeing from war-ravaged nations should be afforded the opportunity of our security and freedom. The rigorous vetting currently imposed on those seeking to come here amply protect us. Adding fuel to ISIL recruitment fires only adds to the clear and present danger coming from the region. Numerous former Secretaries of State and career diplomats agree but the amateurs in the White House have a different political agenda.

Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article

We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.