Stop the Overheated Rhetoric; the Actual Executive Order is Bad Enough

I just read the text of the recent executive order that supposedly "Bans Muslims" and some of the relevant statutes. Unsurprisingly, much of the overheated rhetoric and clickbait headlines (even from reputable news outlets) are inaccurate. I believe it is essential, especially if you oppose the order, to be as precisely accurate as possible when writing about it. This is my analysis based on reading the original documents - I would welcome any corrections if I got anything wrong.

First, we must distinguish between the two main elements of the order. One comprises restrictions on entry to the US of certain visa holders, both temporary visas and immigrant visas ("green cards"). The other comprises restrictions on admission of refugees. These two sets of restrictions should not be confused, as they are not the same and have different effects.

1. The order does not "ban Muslims". It stops entry of citizens of any of a set of countries, most of whom are Muslim, and does not affect entry for most of the world's Muslims.
2. The order does not list a specific set of countries to be affected, but rather refers to the list of countries which are not eligible to be part of the visa waiver program, per 8 U.S. Code § 1187. As far as I can tell, this list came from the Obama administration. As far as I can tell, there is no actual evidence that Trump picked a specific list of countries whose citizens he wanted to ban, contra many memes out there. The supposed link to his business interests is pure speculation. Indeed, there are other Muslim-majority countries where he does not have business interests which are not on the list.
3. The order is being applied to green card holders, that is, legal permanent residents (LPRs). (Evidently, DHS initially did not apply it to LPRs, but the White House overruled them.) This is unconscionable, and perhaps illegal. Indeed, the US insists that green card holders maintain continuous residence in the US - they cannot be out of the US more than six months without potentially losing their status. It is an odious policy, and bad for the US in many ways, to keep out someone whose home, family, and livelihood are all legally in the US, perhaps for many years.
4. A great many talented and productive academics and graduate students here will now be unable to travel abroad, for fear of not being able to return - indeed, many have already been caught abroad by this order and cannot return to their jobs or their studies. This is real human suffering, and also highly negative impact on US science and technology. Harming US research capabilities will certainly not help increase American greatness.
5. It is also entirely unclear to me on what legal basis people holding valid visas can simply be barred from entry for no reason other than their country of citizenship, without revoking their visas (this may depend on the visa type). Issuance of such visas and the legality of entry to the US is governed by Congressional statute. It would seem therefore to fall within their purview. (Alas, Congress has allowed the Executive to appropriate rather too much of its power in recent years and I don't expect them to do much now.)
6. The immediate application of this order within hours to people who had no warning, who were en route to the US with valid visas, who live in the US (whether as legal residents, as students, etc.), does nothing to improve the security of the country. It does, however, create an enormous amount of human suffering.
7. The limit of 50,000 refugees per year is well within historical norms before 2016. It is therefore not outrageous, but certainly can be argued with, on the merits.
8. The prioritization of people persecuted for being members of minority religions is entirely proper and long overdue.
9. The suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is extraordinarily overbroad for its purpose, and will cause great human suffering, especially as applied to people already in transit. The clause enabling case-by-case refugee admission (jointly by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security) is vague, and does not provide any sort of meaningful allowance for refugee admission.
10. The idea of reviewing policies and procedures for immigration and refugee screening is excellent. However, to suddenly and very broadly stop all entry to the country for huge numbers of people is absurd, and clearly not well thought out. The chaos in airports today bears this out.
11. Promulgating poorly-thought out orders with little-to-no interagency or legal review, and no pre-implementation planning, that then require multiple iterations of executive clarification and changes in implementation, is a recipe for instability and chaos. Such instability is, in my opinion, likely to reduce the security of the United States, possibly dramatically so.

Some thoughts on the 2016 election

Listen. Seek first to understand. Do not assume malice, or stupidity, or even ignorance, but start from an assumption that those you disagree with (even vehemently) are rational and intelligent, but may have good reasons for seeing things differently from you. Dismissing people out of hand will persuade no one. We have had too much of that on all sides - it creates rancor, and hardens people's political positions. That helps none of us.

We live in a large and incredibly diverse and now divided country. There are not just two Americas, there are many. Government should therefore be as local as possible, otherwise politics becomes a cage match to determine whose views will control everything. Federalism is a historically-validated way to allow for a diverse and yet civil and functioning polity.

The presidency has accumulated far too much power, and so presidential elections take on apocalyptic dimensions (on all sides). Don't think about what your choice would do with the power, think about what the other guy's choice would do with it. And then limit the power inherent in the office to reasonable proportions.

Supreme Court appointments have become a significantly distorting element in our presidential elections. One's choice of president should not hinge primarily on who he or she will appoint. Reform of the system is clearly needed. One reasonable suggestion is 18-year terms, ensuring that each president has a predictable number of appointments. There are other ideas, but something must be done. A president is more than a justice-appointer.

All of us, at this time, should take great care with what we say, whether out of pain and fear, or out of relief and joy. Let us all try to contribute to an atmosphere of reconciliation, of improved understanding of each other, and of rebuilding a political culture in which we need not agree but can work together.