Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.
Even 34% of Democrats support the ban.
I still think it is grossly mistargeted. Read this article for example:
Kaveh Ranjbar, one of ICANN’s board members, had to miss his flight to Los Angeles on Monday because of the ban.
Ranjbar—who was born in Iran—lives in the Netherlands, where he is the Chief Information Officer of RIPE NCC, a nonprofit regional internet registry. (The company has offices in Amsterdam and Dubai.)
He’s the Chief Executive of the IP address registry for Europe (critical infrastructure for the Internet) yet he can’t enter the US because of where he was born.
It’s fine to have higher standards of admission for some countries, such as visas. But a total ban is silly, even temporarily. It’s basically a PR stunt that will just inconvenience thousands for no security value.
But as the poll shows, most Americans back the ban and I suspect the protests against it may lead to more support for Trump, not less.