[patch_collector]

Not specifically religious persecution -- it's if you're part of a 'minority religion.' Which seems silly to me. Yes, assessing their level of danger should be part of any vetting and prioritization, but it should be an overall thing. If a person is in more danger (due to political ties, or maybe they helped US forces) than someone who's in a minority religion but otherwise safe, shouldn't the first person have priority?

It's good to go about helping the most vulnerable people. Unfortunately, the proposed methodology in the EO was ham-handed at best, and unconstitutional at worst.

[throwaway420]

I think there's fair room for critiques on this implementation and their methodology for selecting priority.

If more than a small number of protesters brought up these kinds of rational arguments, I think many on the right would be far more receptive to seriously listening.

Instead, you hear about a "Muslim ban" and people calling Trump literally Hitler and most people on the right are sick and tired of these kinds of arguments and aren't going to be receptive.