Last week, a team of people from the Trump administration told a number of senior professionals at the State Department that their resignations had been accepted and that there would be no need for them to remain in their positions until the administration’s nominees for replacements had gotten up to speed. (Is this the case in other Departments or is it unique to the State Department? If it is unique to the State Department, then was it the decision of President Trump or of his Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson or of someone else who shall remain nameless, but whose initials are Steven Bannon? If the decision originated with Tillerson, did it reflect previous contact with the State Department while negotiating oil deals with foreign countries?)
Over the week-end, President Trump reconfigured the “principals committee” of the National Security Council. While this has been characterized as, among other things, a diminution of the role of the professional military, both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security are retired Marine Corps generals. Thus, it could be construed—OK, misconstrued—as a shift from the Bureaucratasaurus to the Parrisasaurus Rex.
Currently, an estimated 90,000 people from radical-Islamist-ridden “countries” have received visas to enter the United States. On Friday, 27 January 2017 (one week after taking office) elected-President Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing a 90-day “pause” on immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. This disrupted the late-stage travel plans of about 700 people, who were prevented from boarding U.S.-bound planes. An additional 300 were halted upon arrival in the United States.
Critics quickly pointed out that no one from these countries had ever committed an act of terror in the United States. Implicitly, this left liberals in the awkward position of defending Sudan, which has waged a war of aggression—that the left has been quick to denounce as “genocide–in western Sudan, and that Sudan provided a safe haven to Osama bin Laden until President Bill Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against suspected al-Qaeda terrorist sites inside Sudan. In contrast, countries whose citizens have engaged in terrorism against the United States—Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia—escaped the ban.
Massive protests followed at airports, in the streets, in Congress, and on editorial pages. Not to mention that Iran launched a ballistic missile in a “test” shot: Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are Iranian-dominated countries, in the Iranian view. None the less, a snap poll revealed that almost half (49 percent) of Americans approved President Trump’s order, while 41 percent disapproved the order. Various courts were quick to block the order. All the same, neither refugees nor those foreigners seeking visas are protected by the Bill of Rights. Indeed, that’s why so many people want to come to the United States.
The deep polarization of American politics continues into the post-election period. However, neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton appeared to be much of a healer. So,,,
 This leaves the estimable-I’m-instructed Sally Yates out of the discussion.
 The seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen. To be picky, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian-born “underwear bomber” who tried to bring down an airliner headed to Detroit (why?) had been recruited, trained, and armed in Yemen; al-Shabab in Somalia has recruited a number of Somali-Americans from the upper Midwest.
 The temporary and limited ban easily could be extended and broadened. But why would it have to be? President Trump has already succeeded in scaring the be-Muhammad out of Muslims and potential immigrants.
 “Travel ban prompts chaos, protests,” The Week, 10 February 2017, p. 4.
 “How they see us: Trapped by Trump’s travel ban,” The Week, 10 February 2017, p. 15.
I disagree with this on two points:
1. You said “this left liberals in the awkward position of defending Sudan.” Not at all. Opposing the Trump Executive Order on constitutional grounds (which I do) does not mean that one must therefore automatically defend the government of the Sudan (which I do not).
2. You said “neither refugees nor those foreigners seeking visas are protected by the Bill of Rights”. Not directly. However, the Bill of Rights – indeed the entire Constitution – is a set of rules on the limits of the government of the United States. No matter who is affected or where they live.
You got me on the first one. Type in snarky haste, repent at leisure. On the second, see my post on the Temporary Immigration Pause. The Democrats are–I suspect–going to win this one, but not on real legal grounds. So far as I can tell at the moment. S’why I try to keep reading.