Michael Barbaro

It feels like the entire system of giving foreigners refuge in the U.S.

for political or economic circumstances is...

Does this administration have the legal power to do everything you're describing because it is so sweeping and so retrospective?

So we're going to have to wait and see how this plays out in our legal system.

I want to return for just a moment to Afghanistan, because as broad as some of these potential changes to our immigration system are...

What stands out to me is what these changes will mean for the future of that promise that the U.S.

made to Afghans who helped America in the war.

And in the case of Lock and Will, yes, the promise was kept.

But it's clear from Trump's actions that the promise won't be kept for anyone else from Afghanistan in the future.

And there's a very revealing exchange about this on social media over the past couple of days that I want to discuss with you.

It begins with an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, which is a very conservative editorial board.

And I'm going to read you what they wrote in this editorial.

Okay.

Quote, "...some will say that the shooting in downtown Washington means that the United States should never admit refugees like Lock and Wall."

But the alternative is abandoning allies who assist Americans in war.

And the editorial goes on to say... Basically...

This editorial asks, what happens when the U.S.

just leaves people behind on the battlefield?

Right.

And I think it's worth saying just how much the Wall Street Journal editorial and Stephen Miller's statements completely talk past each other.