Remember that “big, beautiful door” for legal immigrants President Trump promised would be a part of his border wall and immigration policy? Well, he just nearly slammed it shut — at least as far as refugees are concerned.

No matter what your opinion is on immigration, Trump's new and sharply diminished cap on refugees is exactly the wrong policy. It cuts back on America's hospitality in the wrong area, shutting out those who are best-vetted and most worthy of refuge.

According to the Washington Examiner’s reporting , the Trump administration will cut the cap on refugee admissions almost in half, from an already-low annual 30,000 to a mere 18,000. The administration will also give states and localities the ability to opt out of accepting refugees. All in all, the changes will take the meat off the bones of our refugee program.

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 happily meant that no serious national security threat has been posed by refugee admissions.

All 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 United States, 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 very hard to see any legitimate economic argument against refugee resettlement, at least not at the moment. Trump regularly boasts about the booming economy, and he even deserves some credit for it. 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 strongly 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 all 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 own stated goals. It belies Trump's stated support for religious freedom. Modern refugees are often fleeing religious persecution, and many of those fleeing from current and recent conflict zones are persecuted Christians.

According to Open Doors USA , 245 million Christians face some degree of persecution for their religion worldwide. The Trump administration has admitted fewer Christian refugees than past administrations, and it is now poised to cut back the rate of acceptance even further.

It's no wonder that groups such as Catholic Charities USA, World Relief, and Church World Service have all blasted what they see as a self-defeating, inhumane policy change on the president’s part. Unfortunately, Congress has delegated full authority to the president to determine annual refugee caps. Yes, at some point, immigration policy requires a policy as blunt as a refugee cap. But that cap ought to be at least as high as it is now.

Trump should reverse course on this policy, and Congress should change the law so that refugees don't become the first casualty of any immigration cutback.