RAND Corp: Trump’s immigration ban would have saved no one

RAND Corp: Trump's immigration ban would have saved no one

A seven nation army couldn’t do jack squat

Brian Michael Jenkins, a terrorism expert at the non-partisan RAND Corporation, has come out and said that if President Trump’s immigration ban had been implemented in the wake of 9/11 it wouldn’t have saved one American citizen. Mr. Jenkins is quick to point out that no foreign agitator has been responsible for the so-called jihadist attacks that have taken the lives of close to 90 people in the US. These attacks were either carried out by American citizens or legal permanent residents, and none were from the seven countries under Trump’s ban.

A number of people seem to think that the ban is discriminatory as it targets largely Muslim nations; I disagree. Trump only sees one color and that color is green, and allegedly gold. Trump is merely playing to his prejudiced voter base while he already looks ahead to the 2020 election, using Muslims as the bogeymen in his plan to get re-elected. Whether he is President for four or eight years, his presidency will mostly be used to make him more money once he leaves office.

I’ve seen people post on Facebook, where civil political discourse goes to die, something to the effect that if you don’t support the ban why not open your home to these refugees. If I had the space and the money I sure as hell would. I can conversely ask that if you support the ban why not drop your family in one of these countries and see how easy it is to try to get them out?