Report: Trump’s Extreme Executive Order Rocks Muslim Immigrants—Obama, Dems Enraged

Shortly after being sworn into office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that called for ‘extreme vetting’ to help weed out potential terrorists that were looking to come to the United States.

That action provided us with the first clear sign that Trump would not receive anything resembling fair and balanced coverage from the mainstream media.

Trump’s common sense approach towards keeping our nation safe was met with shock and outrage from the biased press. Democratic leaders took it from there, and a number of them made complete buffoons of themselves while attempting to spin Trump’s order as discriminatory in nature.

Who can forget Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) crocodile tears while he was surrounded by cameras and microphones? How about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) comical rendition of ‘This Land is Your Land?’

As shared by the Washington Times, we may want to keep the tissues handy and prepare for another painful sing-along.  

Homeland Security announced Monday that it will soon require more people to undergo in-person interviews before they can gain a firmer legal footing in the U.S., carrying out yet another part of President Trump’s extreme vetting executive order.

While the so-called travel ban on six Muslim-majority countries has garnered most of the attention, it was just a temporary measure designed to give the government the space to stiffen its regular checks so it could be more adept at denying potential terrorists entry.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced one of those new policies Monday, saying it wants more people to have to face in-person interviews before they’re giving permanent status in the country.

It’s an incredibly simple order that can potentially make a serious difference in the battle to keep our nation safe against potential terrorism. Who wouldn’t want that?  

“You can only vet people if you have information, and one of the best ways to get information is to talk to people and then compare that info to objective info you get from other places,” he said. “if you don’t have these interviews you’re missing a fundamental step in the vetting process.”

Mr. O’Brien said the two categories USCIS has started with for mandatory interviews both presented fraud and security risks. In the case of relatives, he said refugees will try to sneak in extended relatives or members of their clan who wouldn’t normally qualify under the letter of the law.

Interviews will add another hurdle to the process — a move that’s likely to meet resistance from activists and immigration lawyers.

If you have your sights set on a job, you don’t just waltz right in, pick out a desk, and start working.

Instead, you go through a screening process. Is that discriminatory too?

Whoops. We may have given Democratic leaders a new item to add to their nonsense platform.

Jobs for everyone! No drug screening allowed! Put an end to invasive interview questions!

As preposterous as that may sound, it’s in the same neighborhood of the thought process behind opposition to extreme vetting.  

We can’t imagine why Democrats have such a hard time selling their agenda.

Source: Washington Times