I think that's a very misguided position to be arguing from, and I don't really think the suddenness of President Trump's absurd declaration did much to "combat" the "skills" of anyone, except those of our own State Department's ability to combat radicalization and terrorism abroad.
Moreover, the numbers don't back up the concerns that supposedly fueled this EO—especially considering the list of nations was, to put it beneficently, awkwardly selective.
Think of it this way: Americans kill far more fellow Americans with guns than foreign nationals kill Americans with anything. You say restricting access to guns won't help, or won't help enough to justify the restriction of access. I disagree, but statistics are—and I'm being generous here—inconclusive to my proclivities. Well, by the same token, vis-à-vis terrorism, I say that travel restrictions to this country, imposed upon visa-holders or permanent-resident aliens of a certain religion from those seven countries, won't help combat terrorism, or won't help enough to justify that sort of discriminatory activity—and the statistics are much closer to conclusive on this score. You consider restriction-a to be insanity—a total abrogation of those dear rights that make America so grand ... but you consider restriction-b to be laudable, sensible policy. Help me make sense of this cognitive disjunction.
