Here's A Complete List of Republicans Who Don't Support Trump's Immigration/Refugee Executive Order

President Donald Trump's executive order on refugees and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries was the focal point of controversy over the weekend due to its botched rollout, as Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro explains here. Numerous Republicans came out in opposition to the executive order or expressed serious concerns about the executive order.

Here is the full list of Republicans who don't support Trump's executive order.

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The senators released a joint statement against the executive order, particularly its approval without much vetting:

"Such a hasty process risks harmful results," the statement read. "We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children."

The senators added that the executive order could backfire in the country's efforts to prevent terrorism.

"At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies," the statement continued. "Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security."

Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Scott (R-SC). Like McCain and Graham, Rubio and Scott also issued a joint statement that raised concerns over the executive order, although it stopped just short of outright condemning it.

"Given the broad scope and nature of these policy changes, we have some unanswered questions and concerns," the statement read. "We are seeking clarity on the changes to the Visa Waiver program, which is critical to the economies of our respective states."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). Lee said that he had "some technical questions" about the executive order that he needed clarified first.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE). "While not technically a Muslim ban, this order is too broad," Sasse said in a statement. "There are two ways to lose our generational battle against jihadism by losing touch with reality. The first is to keep pretending that jihadi terrorism has no connection to Islam or to certain countries. That's been a disaster. And here's the second way to fail: If we send a signal to the Middle East that the U.S. sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion. Both approaches are wrong, and both will make us less safe."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). "This executive order has been poorly implemented, especially with respect to green card holders," said Corker in a statement. "The administration should immediately make appropriate revisions, and it is my hope that following a thorough review and implementation of security enhancements that many of these programs will be improved and reinstated."

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO). "While I am supportive of strengthening our screening processes and securing our borders, a blanket travel ban goes too far," Gardner said. "I also believe that lawful residents of the United States should be permitted to enter the country. I urge the Administration to take the appropriate steps to fix this overly broad executive order."

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN). Alexander echoed the sentiment of many of his colleagues, saying in statement that the executive order was overly "broad."

"While not explicitly a religious test, it comes close to one which is inconsistent with our American character," Alexander said.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV). Heller tweeted that the executive order had "the appearance of a religious ban" and that "an overly broad executive order is not the way to strengthen national security."

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Flake wrote on Medium:

President Trump and his administration are right to be concerned about national security, but it’s unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry. Enhancing long term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA). Toomey criticized the executive order as "too broad and poorly explained," especially since it "denied entry into the United States for lawful permanent residents and others who should have been allowed immediate entry."

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS). Moran made it clear that he does "not support restricting the rights of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents" and that the executive order should have been "devised in consultation with Congress and relevant government agencies."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK).

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC).

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS). "We need to strike a balance that protects the rights of Americans and those permitted to enter the country legally," Roberts said. "The president needs to work with Congress to ensure every aspect of a major policy change such as this is taken into consideration."

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH). "We ought to all take a deep breath and come up with something that makes sense for our national security and again for this notion that America has always been a welcoming home for refugees and immigrants," Portman said.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA). "There must be more clarity surrounding the order’s implementation. In our efforts to protect our nation from ISIS, we also must ensure we are not inadvertently penalizing our allies in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism — especially those who have supported U.S. military efforts in Iraq," Ernst said.

Sen. John Barasso (R-WY). "A religious test or ban is against everything our country stands for," Barasso said in a statement. "We need to remember that some of our best sources of information that keeps our nation and our troops safe comes from our Muslim friends and allies."

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI).

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).

Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX).

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX). McCaul issued a statement calling for "adjustments" to the executive order.

"We should not simply turn away individuals who already have lawful U.S. visas or green cards—like those who have risked their lives serving alongside our forces overseas or who call America their home," McCaul said. "In the future, such policy changes should be better coordinated with the agencies implementing them and with Congress to ensure we get it right—and don’t undermine our nation’s credibility while trying to restore it."

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA). Nunes supported the concept behind Trump's executive order but felt that it shouldn't apply to "green card holders and those who've assisted the U.S. armed forces."

Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA). Comstock said that the executive order went "beyond the increased vetting actions that Congress has supported on a bipartisan basis and inexplicably applied to Green Card holders" and needed to be fixed.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Ros-Lehtinen said that the executive order was unnecessary "because we could have accomplished our objective of keeping our homeland safe by immediate implementation of more thorough screening procedures."

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). Kinzinger was uneasy that "reports of green card holders and those who assisted us in the war on terror being denied or delayed entry" were occurring as a result of the executive order, which he said was "deeply concerning."

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA). "I understand what his intention is, but unfortunately the order appears to have been rushed through without full consideration," Dent said.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY). Stefanik posted on Facebook:

I oppose President Trump's rushed and overly broad Executive Order. On the House Armed Services Committee, I have advocated for Iraqi and Afghans who have served side by side as our allies to be prioritized to access visas. It is Congress' role to write our immigration laws and I strongly urge the President to work with Congress moving forward as we reform our immigration system to strengthen our homeland security.

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO).

Rep. Leonard Nance (R-NJ). Nance posted on Facebook:

The Trump Administration has every right to be concerned about the safety and security of the American People. The first responsibility of the federal government is to secure the homeland and keep the American people safe. And while I do support increased vetting of individuals applying to travel from countries with extensive terrorist ties or activity, the President’s current travel ban executive order appears rushed and poorly implemented. Reports of green card holders and those who assisted us in the War on Terror being denied or delayed entry into the U.S. is deeply concerning and must be remedied immediately. It is Congress’ role to amend our immigration laws and I strongly urge President Trump to work with legislators to enact a clear, effective and enhanced vetting and monitoring process.

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL).

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA). "The President's policy entirely misses the mark," Fitzpatrick wrote in a Facebook post. "The reality is, terrorism inspired by radicalism and hate is global in scope and, as such, requires a comprehensive response, not a purely regional focus. While serious actions are needed to protect our country, these must not be done in a way that singles out any specific nations or ethnicities."

Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH). "The executive order risks violating our nation’s values and fails to differentiate mainstream Islamic partners from radical Islamic terrorists—setting back our fight against radical Islam," Stivers said. "I urge the Administration to quickly replace this temporary order with permanent improvements in the visa vetting process."

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA). "The manner in which this Order is being implemented at airports and other points of entry appears that some innocent people... are having their lives needlessly disrupted," Newhouse said in a statement. "I encourage the administration to review its order in consultation with its national security team to ensure our enforcement resources are being targeted where they can be most effective."

Rep. John Faso (R-NY). "The order was neither well drafted nor well implemented," Faso said in a statement. "Given recent events both here and abroad, we need to take steps to strengthen our nation's security; however, this is most effectively pursued through thoughtful and deliberative legislation. While I acknowledge that the president may act in the event of a national security threat or emergency situation, this process was rushed and led to confusion.

"There is no doubt that we need to thoroughly vet people coming from countries where there are strongholds of ISIS and al-Qaida. At the same time, we have to balance our security with the need to respect the rights of US citizens and people who are subject to valid immigration proceedings, including lawful permanent residents."

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC). Sanford said that "the way in which it was done just seems bizarre."

Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME). Poliquin said that he didn't support the executive orders but instead was supportive of Trump's efforts to secure the border.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC). "The language of the order should not apply to legal permanent residents of the United States, and if it is being enforced in any other way, the administration should step in swiftly to clarify," Walker said.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Sensenbrenner said that it's not "right to ban green card holders from entering the United States absent evidence of a threat, regardless of where they are from."

Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN). "I do not believe in discrimination, I do not support a religious test for immigrants or refugees, and I do support our nation's refugee resettlement program," Brooks said. "America is a nation of immigrants, and our diversity has always been one of our greatest strengths. I join my colleagues in Congress in calling on the Administration for more information and clarity around the impact of the temporary provisions in the executive order on people who already have visas or who have previously been granted legal status."

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL). Hultgren said that the executive order was "overly broad" and that the country must welcome "those who are fleeing oppression and seeking safety."

Rep. John Katko (R-NY). Katko said that he was worried that the executive order "could potentially deny entrance to our country to lawful, permanent residents and dual citizens."

Rep. Frank Lobiondo (R-NJ). While Lobiondo supported the concept of the executives, he felt that its implementation was "hasty," which resulted in "wide-spread confusion, frustration and misrepresentation of what America stands for."

"This was avoidable and I urge the Trump Administration, working with appropriate federal, state and local agencies, to quickly reassess," Lobiondo said.

Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO). Tipton wrote on Facebook that he was "concerned about the confusion that Friday’s executive order has created for U.S. green card holders and permanent residents."

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA). Denham wrote on Facebook that the executive order has resulted in "a lot of uncertainty and unintended consequences."

"As we have seen with previous administrations, EOs are not the way to resolve ongoing problems," Denham wrote.

Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH).

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ). "This weekend’s confusion is an indication that the details of this executive order were not properly scrutinized," Frelinghuysen wrote on Facebook. "Among others, reconsideration should be given to courageous individuals who served as interpreters for our military and properly vetted refugees. Congress has important oversight responsibilities over all executive orders, which we intend to exercise."

Rep. Erik Paulson (R-MN). "The President’s executive order is too broad and has been poorly implemented and conceived," Paulson wrote on Facebook. "It is clear from the events this weekend that the executive order does not ensure that legal residents, including green card holders, and non-threats, such as those who served alongside the American military in Iraq, are treated fairly and with the dignity they deserve."

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA). Beutler said that there could be better policy than "unnecessarily detaining innocent individuals who have followed the rules, stood in line, and pose no threat to our country."

Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN). Buschon said that while he supports the concept of a refugee ban, "the restrictions should not affect U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents."

"In addition, I believe people with previously approved refugee status applications or visas should be admitted to the U.S," Buschon continued.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC). Walker said that the executive order shouldn't apply to green-card holders.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID).

Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger called Trump's executive order "crazy and it makes us look stupid when the White House is ill-prepared to put these kind of executive orders out there."

(h/t: Washington Post, Fortune, The Hill and Heavy.com)

Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter @bandlersbanter.


What's Your Reaction?