Shortly after President Donald Trump signed his executive order implementing a 90-day travel ban (among other provisions), the narrative emerged that there wasn’t much logic to his ban, aside from the fact that he excluded nations he’s done business with from the ban.That of course, was completely false. The nations in Trump’s travel ban were decided by a law that was signed by Barack Obama.
But the left is also saying we’ve never faced a terrorist threat from the seven countries from which he chose to temporarily restrict travel (Syria, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia).
But that’s also not true either.As the Washington Examiner reported: Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump‘s “extreme vetting” executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is “no evidence” those countries have produced a terrorist.
According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as “students,” and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.
The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:
— Somalia: 20
— Yemen: 19
— Iraq: 19
— Syria: 7
— Iran: 4
— Libya: 2
— Sudan: 1
The Center’s director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan, based her blockbuster report on a 2016 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born.
She received further information on many in the report to conclude that 72 of those convicted of terrorism come from the seven nations target by Trump.Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The 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.
How did the 9th Circuit miss all those cases? It’s almost as if they were acting based on their political agenda – not the facts.
[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]