Krauthammer: Trump's Travel Ban Was 'Unnecessary Overshoot'
As a federal appellate court listened to oral arguments in a lawsuit over President Donald Trump’s travel and refugee ban, Charles Krauthammer explained why he thinks it was unnecessary for Trump to restrict travel to the U.S. in the first place.
On "Special Report" tonight, Krauthammer argued the whole thing is a "kabuki" to make us feel safer from terrorism.
He pointed out that in the 15 years since 9/11, the U.S. hasn't been attacked by even one national from the seven Muslim-majority countries singled out in Trump's executive order - Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.
"I'm not against tightening the vetting. We should," Krauthammer said. "But I think it was unnecessary to order an immediate suspension for 90 days, as if there was an imminent threat that hordes of Yemenis and Somalis were about to board airplanes and attack the United States."
He said that barring "doctors, students and grandmothers" from entering the U.S. caused the backlash to Trump's order, and it actually hurt the administration's argument.
Krauthammer noted that polls now show the American public has changed its opinion on admitting Syrian refugees into the U.S., with a majority of people now in favor of the refugee resettlement program.
"I think it's a direct result of the fact that this was an unnecessary overshoot," Krauthammer said. "Yes, tighten up the vetting. But there was no reason to suspend the visits of people who were already in the air."
Watch more above, and let us know what you think in the comments.