- The Washington Times - Thursday, April 27, 2017

Ivanka Trump, already under growing fire from some in the conservative camps who think she’s exerting too much influence over dad Donald, is now calling for the White House to open doors to Syrian refugees.

Conservatives and border control advocates are quite right to be concerned.

Ivanka’s soft stance on refugees would seem a direct conflict with President Donald Trump’s campaign promises to crack down on borders — and particularly, on the entrance of refugees from terror-tied nations who could prove a national security danger to American citizens.

The famous first daughter said in an interview with MSNBC just recently: “I think there is a global humanitarian crisis that’s happening and we have to come together and we have to solve it.”

So does that mean open U.S. doors to refugees, Ivanka?

“That has to be part of the discussion,” she said. “But that’s not going to be enough in and or itself.”

Raise the red flag and sound the alarm. 

How this plays out in terms of White House policy is anybody’s guess at this point. Trump, of course, did sign two executive orders temporarily banning U.S. entry of those from seven hotspot terror countries — mostly Muslim nations — that included Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

“Specifically, the suspension applied to countries referred to in, or designated under, section 217 … in which Congress restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program for nationals of, and aliens recently present in (A) Iraq or Syria, (B) any country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria and Sudan) and (C) any other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” a portion of the White House’s March order stated.

Federal justices and left-leaners in politics cried racism. But the order was pretty clear: It was national security, not humanitarian need, that should be the priority with border policy. And it only furthered what Trump stated from the campaign trail, when he vowed to upend Barack Obama’s refugee resettlement plan and limit who can come into America, who can’t, based on national security reasons rather than political and special interest will.

Just this past November, Trump said at Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport: “A Trump administration will not admit any refugees without the support of the local community where they are being placed. … When I’m elected president, we will suspend the Syrian refugee program and we will keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country.”

Right. But so far — not so bold.

The fact Ivanka’s now turned the whole refugee matter from one of national security to one of emotion-driven debate is a concern.

It moves the border debate back to the left — back to Obama’s time when national security came secondary to leftist visions of a collapsed culture, an erased border. It leaves a question mark in the minds of voters who supported Trump, in large part, due to his border-slash-national-security views, but who now wonder: Who’s he going to listen to — Ivanka or us?

On this, let’s hope emotion ultimately takes a back seat to security and it’s the will of the Americans who voted, not the personal preference of a president’s family member, that wins.

Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide

Sponsored Stories