Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare has a detailed takedown: Malevolence Tempered by Incompetence: Trump’s Horrifying Executive Order on Refugees and Visas. He describes his background, he's no screaming liberal:
Let’s start with the malevolence of the document, which Amira Mikhail summarized and Adham Sahloul analyzed earlier today. I don’t use the word “malevolence” here lightly. As readers of my work know, I believe in strong counterterrorism powers. I defend non-criminal detention. I’ve got no problem with drone strikes. I’m positively enthusiastic about American surveillance policies. I was much less offended than others were by the CIA’s interrogations in the years after September 11. I have defended military commissions.
Some of these policies were effective; some were not. Some worked out better than others. And I don’t mean to relitigate any of those questions here. My sole point is that all of these policies were conceptualized and designed and implemented by people who were earnestly trying to protect the country from very real threats. And the policies were, to a one, proximately related to important goals in the effort. While some of these policies proved tragically misguided and caused great harm to innocent people, none of them was designed or intended to be cruel to vulnerable, concededly innocent people. Even the CIA’s interrogation program, after all, was deployed against people the agency believed (mostly correctly) to be senior terrorists of the most dangerous sort and to garner information from them that would prevent attacks.
I actually cannot say that about Trump’s new executive order—and neither can anyone else.
Read it, it's informative (and scary). I want to add a bit of snark. This is from the actual executive order, Section 1. Purpose, paragraph 3:
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
See I think this applies to Trump.
- "do not support the Constitution" - the emoluments clause
- "engage in acts of bigotry or hatred" - Mexicans are rapists and murders, "Islam hates us", mocking the disabled, encouraging violence at his rallies, his cabinet picks
- "other forms of violence against women" - grab 'em by the pussy
- "persecution of those who practice religions different from their own" - calls for a muslim ban and other comments
- "oppress Americans of any race" - discriminations against black tenants, the central park five, tacit approval of KKK
- "gender" - he's not doing honor killings though there are plenty of accusal of sexual assault. Evidence of misogyny is thin, but there's no question about a history of sexism
- "sexual orientation" - he's against gay marriage and his VP pick is flagrantly homophobic