The issues that keep being ignored by the pro-ban argument, which they cannot address, are three fold:
1) Fear is not the same as serious risk. While the public can be made to fear just about anything (Muslims, Jews, communists, capitalists, immigrants...), that doesn't make it a "serious risk." And not all risks require emergency attempts to "fix" them.
2) The "risk" posed by immigrants is well known, the data is available and the calculations have been done. With our present screening process the risk falls below your clothes catching on fire but just above spontaneous human combustion. There are thousands of things that pose a greater risk to the American public than refugees, you are far more likely to die from hot tap water, cows, vending machines, wind, roller coasters, or suffocation in bed. Don't confuse fear with risk. And finally-
3) The implementation was meant to be dramatic, not effective. The United States updates the process all the time, certain countries get more scrutiny, others get less. New things are added, old procedures are dropped. But the changes are reviewed ahead of time and then quietly implemented. There isn't a dramatic signing ceremony and a promise of trying to find out if there is a problem so that they can consider making a plan later. (immigration - promise to come up with a plan. Education - Davos will come up with a plan. ISIS - Trump has asked the generals to come up with a plan. Obama Care - we should have a plan by 2018. The Wall - he's working on a plan.)
Stranding people at airports; stranding engineers who live in the US that were overseas for major corporations; professors, researches and students couldn't get to Universities; people needing medical care just told "too bad;" families that were split; and scores of tourists who will not longer be coming to Disney, NYC, or LA. Most of the people actually affected by the ban (and to be clear, after Trump's team spent a week denying it was a ban...Trump again called it a ban) have lived in the US for a long time. With a stroke of a pen Trump's fear declared them a risk.
It is a PR stunt, not sound policy. If you want to tighten immigration/refugee/tourist protocol, that's fine. It is the prerogative of the executive branch. But if there really was a problem, they would at least be able to point to what needs to be fixed. Instead, we get a signing ceremony and promises that there will be a plan.
Finally, is it legal? I have no idea. But Trump's utter disdain for an independent judiciary is a strong sign of someone who wants to be a tyrant. "If something bad happens blame the judge..." is classic fear mongering. The message is "it doesn't matter if it is Constitutional, I'm keeping YOU safe and the judge is putting you at risk. I need unlimited power to keep you safe!" His other statements are even more grotesque:
So called judge? The guy is a federal judge, that's just a fact. And the judiciary didn't "take away law enforcement," it is trying to review if the decree you signed is constitutional. You know...that pesky document you swore to uphold. Never even read it, disgraceful. Horrible!
Well, for starters, it has come to a system of government with three independent branches providing checks and balances. Did you miss 3rd grade? And I don't think the judge through out a century of immigration laws, border checkpoints, and patrols- or did I miss something? No? OK, then not "anyone" can come in. The only people that can come in with the ban lifted are people already authorized to travel to the United States, most of whom have already been here for years.
Someone get The Donald a classroom civics poster from a 3rd grade classroom.