On Friday, President Donald Trump issued executive orders halting all refugees from entering the US for one-hundred and twenty days, banning Syrian refugees from entry indefinitely, and instituting a ninety-day prohibition of all citizens–including “students, visitors, and green-card holding permanent US residents,” according to the New York Times–of seven Muslim majority countries: Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Notably excluded are Muslim-majority countries where Trump has business ties, including UAE, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Azerbaijan, despite a few of these countries recently witnessing upticks in incidents of terrorism. Also excluded were countries which have long suffered from incidents of terrorism such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Finally, the newly inaugurated President announced his Administration will prioritize the entry of Christian refugees and cut the total number of refugees allowed entry in 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000.

Over the weekend, protests erupted across the nation as green-card holders were either detained after landing in American airports or denied entry onto planes bound for the United States. News publications’ portrayal of these protests conformed to that of their political affiliations. Association with a political party increasingly and illogically results in unwavering support for the party’s agenda. Americans, no matter who they voted for in November, can and must collaborate in their condemnation of these executive orders.

The repercussions of Trump’s executive actions

These measures, essentially bans on Muslims entering the US, were a principal part of Trump’s campaign platform, and adopted by his campaign rival, Senator Ted Cruz. Some conservative commentators, including David French of the National Review, have risen in defense of the measures and accused liberals of “hysteria” in an effort to downplay the extent and importance of Trump’s newest executive orders. French makes four claims: first, that Trump’s contraction of the total number of refugees admitted is a return to limits before the Obama Administration; second, that former President Obama did not expand Syrian refugee admittance until the latter years of his presidency; third, that President Trump only wants to ensure the refugee review process is secure; and fourth, that the President may let Muslims enter the United States due to a provision stipulating religious minorities may enter.

French’s arguments distort reality. First, there was no refugee crisis during the Bush Administration comparable to the millions fleeing the Middle East today. Besides, the United States has expanded its refugee intake during occasions of great influxes like the current one, such as during the exoduses from Cuba and Vietnam in the latter half of the twentieth century. Second, Obama consistently tried to increase the number of refugees allowed entry but was blocked with Republican intransigence. Obama’s inaction, which drew criticism, should not be equated to Trump’s decisive regression, which has rightfully garnered a greater degree of criticism.  Moreover, Obama’s failures do not make Trump’s actions any more acceptable. Third, the refugee review process is a comprehensive, two year process involving the United Nations and nine American agencies that has clearly proven successful: there have never been any refugee attacks on American soil. Finally, Trump has explicitly stated on Fox News that the minority provision will be used for Christians, not Muslims; French offers no justification for his hypothetical becoming reality.

Advocates and defenders of these newest executive orders, like French, should examine experts’ analyses of their probable consequences. In essence: the President has made the United States less safe. Daniel Benjamin, terrorism scholar and former State Department official, says the executive orders alienate Iraqis and Syrians fighting ISIS, reinforce anti-American resentment that fuels homegrown terrorism, and will “feed the jihadist narrative.” Moreover, according to professor Charles Kurzman of UNC, “since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, no one has been killed in the United States in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from or whose parents emigrated from” the seven countries Trump’s order targets.

In addition to the public outcry against the measures, there have been responses from the international sphere and federal judiciary. In response to an emergency appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union, a historied non-governmental organization that advocates for civil rights, federal judge Ann Donnelly granted a temporary stay and ordered those detained at American airports to remain in the United States rather than be returned to their home countries. Shortly after this, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered all America-bound refugees a place in Canada, and European leaders condemned the executive orders as antithetical to liberal principles.

After these positive developments, public optimism for a strong, principled Republican Party and Trump Cabinet dissolved when Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, both of whom explicitly condemned the proposition of a similar measure during the campaign, expressed support for Trump’s executive orders and stood smiling behind Trump as he signed the order. The vicious tribalism in which America has been drowning suggests Republican voters may follow suit, regardless of how they actually feel about the merits of Trump’s measures. Admitting error is increasingly seen by liberals and conservatives as an intolerable defeat, as it is a submission to a morally repugnant opposition. Such sentiment has corrupted politics and open-minded discourse–the two tools necessary for societal progress.

The Un-Americaness of America First

The proliferation of this sentiment is partly attributable to Americans increasingly deriving parts of their identity from a political party, and then equating their party’s values with American values. Therefore, in this mental framework, members of opposing parties are not simply against one’s political positions but against the United States. This perversion of identity, and consequently of politics and discourse, were the very fruits the Founding Fathers feared political parties would bear. Our identities, they believed, must be founded upon American-ness. Therefore, this is about what is “American.”

Intrinsic to American-ness is liberty derived from the natural rights that a civic God — not a god of any specific religion — has bestowed to all of humanity. No Founding Father argued these rights existed only for the few who practiced a religion that all could tolerate.  For this reason, in 1776, a twenty-five year old James Madison successfully argued for replacing “fullest toleration” of religions with “free exercise” of religion in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, inspiring the Founders to do the same in the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution.

President Trump’s regressive measures are an unequivocal rejection of the values enshrined in these founding documents —  inclusion and tolerance, open-mindedness and a presumption of benevolence, freedom of expression and privacy — which make the United States exceptional and drive progress. It is therefore impossible for one to argue that their views align with American values while defending Trump’s actions.

Until these executive orders are discarded, the United States of America exists as a closed society with limited freedom for some, a country disdainful of the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and a prisoner to the will of the minority who elected Trump. The President’s supporters must remember their American-ness, prize liberty, and condemn the exclusion of the people who make America great. Liberals should welcome them to the cause.