As Peter Bergen writes, “All the lethal acts of jihadist terrorism in the States since 9/11 have been carried out by American citizens or legal residents, and none of them have been the work of Syrian refugees.” Around a quarter of all attacks have been perpetrated by converts to Islam. Ergo, the link between migration and terrorism is weak, which makes a refugee ban look arbitrary and cruel.

The choice of countries affected is pretty random, too. Iran makes the list – even though the incidence of Western, Shia, state-sponsored terrorism is negligible – and yet Afghanistan and Pakistan, both undeniably sources of extremism are excluded. The argument goes that the countries chosen have either governments that back terror or powerful terrorist groups that hold territory there. But that’s actually a solid reason to take refugees from those nations – i.e. the refugees are obviously fleeing persecution.

Given the random nature of the policy and its unclear goals, the administration leaves itself open to the charge of Islamophobia. This is a propaganda coup for the enemy. The Islamic State will be able to point to Trump’s words on terrorism and Islam as proof that the “crusader states” are either indifferent to Muslim suffering or actively encouraging it. Moreover, the whiff of Islamophobia will have a detrimental effect upon the lives of US Muslim citizens who, again, fit no easy stereotype. American Muslims are largely middle-class and well educated; integration has mostly been achieved. As of 2012, there were 3,600 Muslims on active duty in the US military.

Trump has made a mistake. Of course, it’s arguably what people voted for. But that doesn’t make it practicable or right, and moderate Republicans should call a mistake a mistake when they see one being made.