The reason for President Trump’s reissued executive order is to “protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” A further justification buried in the executive order is that “[s]ince 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism‐​related crimes in the United States.”





What exactly is a “terrorism‐​related crime”? There is no definition in U.S. statutes. The phrase “terrorism‐​related” does appear but mostly in reference to actions of government officials in response to terrorism such as a terrorism‐​related travel advisory. One use of the phrase “terrorism‐​related” that makes the most sense in this context comes from the anti‐​terrorism Information Sharing Environment (ISE) that integrates information which the GAO defined as relating to “terrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement, as well as other information.” That’s so broad that a reasonable person can’t possibly see “terrorism‐​related” as synonymous with “terrorism.”





If the people counted as “terrorism‐​related” convictions were really convicted of planning, attempting, or carrying out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil then supporters of Trump’s executive order would call them “terrorism convictions” and exclude the “related.” After all, when people are convicted of murder we don’t call it a “murder‐​related conviction.” We call it murder.





The most famous list of terrorism‐​related convictions is that published by Senator Sessions in 2016 that shows 580 convictions from 9/11 until the end of 2014 (the link isn’t working now for some reason). Sessions’ list appears to be the source of the worry that “hundreds of person born abroad have been convicted of terrorism‐​related crimes in the United States.”





Only 339 of the 580 terrorism‐​related convictions on Sessions’ list were actually convicted of a terrorism crime. The other 241 (42 percent) were not convicted of a terrorism crime. “Terrorism‐​related” apparently includes investigations that begin due to a terrorism tip but then ended in non‐​terrorism convictions. My favorite examples of this are the convictions of Nasser Abuali, Hussein Abuali, and Rabi Ahmed. An informant told the FBI that the trio tried to purchase a rocket‐​propelled grenade launcher but the FBI found no evidence of that. The three individuals were instead convicted of the non‐​terrorist crime of receiving two truckloads of stolen cereal—which is not terrorism.





An additional 92 (16 percent) convictions were of U.S.-born citizens whose plots would not have been prevented by Trump’s executive order.





That leaves 247 (43 percent) who were foreign‐​born and actually convicted of a real terrorist offense. Of those, 180 were convicted of material support for foreign terrorists, attempting to join foreign terrorist organizations, planning a terrorist attack abroad, or a similar offense taking place abroad. Twenty‐​seven were extradited to the United States and tried here for any one of the offenses listed abroad. Only 40 were convicted of planning, attempting, or carrying out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Future immigrants and non‐​immigrants who are similar to those 40 terrorists are the intended focus of Trump’s executive order. They only comprise 6.9 percent of the 580 “terrorism‐​related” convictions listed by Senator Sessions.





At most, only 58 percent of the “terrorism‐​related” convictions given as the likely justification for this executive order can be classified as actual terrorism. The other 42 percent were not convicted of a terrorism offense. Only 6.9 percent were convicted or attempting, planning, or carrying out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.





As a note, Stanford University associate professor of law Shirin Sinnar recently received an answer to a FOIA that showed 627 convictions to the end of 2015 but I have not been able to parse them by terrorism or non‐​terrorism convictions.