The State Department justifies this change by arguing that “President Trump is prioritizing the safety and security of the American people by making sure we do not admit more people than we can vet.” But this is hogwash. In truth, refugees – who by definition apply for status through legal processes and from locations far from our borders – are better vetted than any other class of immigrant. Our diligence in this matter – in contrast to Europe’s negligence – has meant that no serious national security threat has been posed by refugee admissions.

Refugees admitted through our immigration system are subject to extensive vetting and for good reason. They are typically resettled with their families, given job opportunities, cash payments from taxpayers, and a chance at a normal existence in a placid location stateside. The libertarian Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh calculated that “the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack by a refugee is about 1 in 3.86 billion per year.” Refugees create almost no problems in the U.S., even though the U.S. has for many years led the world in refugee admissions. And if cost is the issue, the U.S. should follow Canada’s lead in permitting the private sponsorship of refugees, as Nowrasteh has suggested.

It’s also hard to see an economic argument against refugee resettlement. Trump boasts about the booming economy, and he deserves some credit. Given record low levels of unemployment, and millions more open jobs than we have workers willing to fill them, a few thousand lawfully immigrating refugees are not harming anyone. We support tougher border enforcement, but we don’t want to cut back on the number of persecuted individuals who, in contrast to illegal border crossers, go through the proper legal channels and full vetting to become Americans.

In 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services looked into the fiscal impact of refugees. It estimated that “the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over [a] 10-year period, at $63 billion.” It would seem that, if anything, more of the nation’s annual quota for migration should go to refugees, especially given the dire situations from which they are fleeing.

The Trump administration’s antagonism toward refugees undercuts its stated goals. It belies Trump’s stated support for religious freedom. Modern refugees often flee religious persecution, and many of those fleeing are persecuted Christians.