To the Editor:

I have just read the recent guest column stating how our moral status is weakened by the immigration ban. I find this delusion to be rampant among those whose self righteousness overshadows good sense and logic. Does the writer know, or care, that the “ban” is temporary, similar to those imposed by both Obama and Clinton? Does the writer understand that a better vetting system is needed to protect U.S. citizens? Is it somehow immoral to protect ourselves better? If morality is such an issue, where is his outrage over our homeless veterans? Over our police officers being gunned down, over rampant drug use?

There are many other countries that these refugees can go to if they are unwilling to wait 90 days. Most of which can be walked to from their current homeland. Yet, it somehow makes sense to fly them over those countries and bring them to a foreign culture and way of life, with little or no vetting to assure our safety.

I wonder, how is France, Germany or Norway enjoying their refugees and that non-homogeneous lifestyle the writer wants to claim we have here? I, for one, have no issue helping make us safer. I, for one, don’t want to be in the same position as those European countries. More importantly, I don’t think anyone should pretend to be so morally offended by protecting ourselves. There is a difference between compassion and being foolish.

I would also like to point out, since so many claim there has been no issue with refugees, that we look to Minnesota and the Somali refugee gangs, Michigan and what is going on in Ann Arbor. I say, America and its citizens first.

Michael N. Treb

Hinckely