Following President Trump’s executive order on immigration, several Republicans have weighed in on the policy, which halts the U.S. intake of refugees and pauses travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.

Some, like House Speaker Paul Ryan, have shown their support for the White House directive, signed Friday.

Others, like Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham, have knocked the policy as dangerous to American national security interests. (And they’ve drawn fire for their stance, most noticeably from President Trump himself.)

Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox

Still others have expressed wary concern but have yet to outright condemn the travel ban, which Mr. Trump and his administration insists is “not about religion.”

CBS News is keeping a running tally of all the GOP legislators that have commented on the ban so far. Take a look below to see how Republicans have responded:

Critical of the executive order:

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote in a statement that it was “overly broad” and that its implementation would be “problematic.”

“It could interfere with the immigration of Iraqis who worked for American forces in Iraq as translators and body guards -- people who literally saved the lives of our troops and diplomats during the last decade and whose lives are at risk if they remain in Iraq,” Collins said.

She added, of Mr. Trump’s comments that the U.S. refugee policy would give priority to persecuted Christians in the Middle East, that “a preference should not be given to people who practice a particular religion, nor should a greater burden be imposed on people who practice a particular religion.”

“[R]eligious tests serve no useful purpose in the immigration process and run contrary to our American values,” Collins wrote.

Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, called the executive order “poorly implemented.”

“We all share a desire to protect the American people, but this executive order has been poorly implemented, especially with respect to green card holders,” Corker said in a statement. “The administration should immediately make appropriate revisions, and it is my hope that following a thorough review and implementation of security enhancements that many of these programs will be improved and reinstated.”

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, said that parts of the ban were “unacceptable”:

“President Trump and his administration are right to be concerned about national security, but it’s unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry,” Flake wrote in a Medium post. “Enhancing long term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.”

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, said in a statement to the Washington Post that the ban “goes too far”:

“While I am supportive of strengthening our screening processes and securing our borders, a blanket travel ban goes too far,” Gardner said. “I also believe that lawful residents of the United States should be permitted to enter the country. I urge the administration to take appropriate steps to fix this overly broad executive order.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, wrote in a joint statement with Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, that the ban “may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security”:

“Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation. It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted,” the two said. “Such a hasty process risks harmful results...Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.”

Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” of his concerns about the ban’s impact on national security:

“It is a confused process, which the good news is that it’s only got to do with a pause. The bad news is that, obviously, this process and these conclusions were not vetted,” McCain said Sunday. “There are so many questions that -- for example, it didn’t filter down to our customs people who can come in, who can’t.Is a green card holder, as was originally interpreted, who is legally in this country, can that person be barred from coming into the country?”

He pointed to a talk he had with Gen. David Petraeus, the former CIA director, where he said he was “very concerned about the special visas for those interpreters whose lives are literally in danger as we speak, that they would not be allowed to come into our country.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, charged that the vetting proposal “itself needed more vetting” in a statement.

“More scrutiny of those traveling from war-torn countries to the United States is wise. But this broad and confusing order seems to ban legal, permanent residents with ‘green cards,’ and might turn away Iraqis, for example, who were translators and helped save lives of Americans troops and who could be killed if they stay in Iraq,” Alexander wrote. “And while not explicitly a religious test, it comes close to one which is inconsistent with our American character.”

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, said in a statement that the executive action was “too broad”:

“There are two ways to lose our generational battle against jihadism by losing touch with reality. The first is to keep pretending that jihadi terrorism has no connection to Islam or to certain countries. That’s been a disaster,” Sasse said. “And here’s the second way to fail: If we send a signal to the Middle East that the U.S. sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion. Both approaches are wrong, and both will make us less safe. Our generational fight against jihadism requires wisdom.”

Republican representatives opposing the ban include: Rep. Justin Amash, R-Michigan, Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colorado, Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Virginia, Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Florida, Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania, Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, Rep. Leonard Lance, R-New Jersey, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-New York.

Expressed concerns:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, urged in a statement that the White House “tailor its policy on visa issuance as narrowly as possible”:

“The present geopolitical situation in the war torn Middle East presents a number of difficult questions regarding the intersection of our efforts to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism and our legal and moral obligations to help the innocent victims of these terrible conflicts. In particular, as a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am acutely aware that many of my own ancestors in the not too distance past were themselves refugees, religious minorities violently driven from their homes and who undertook a long and dangerous journey to build a new life in a distant land,” Harch wrote. “I strongly urge the new administration to move quickly to tailor its policy on visa issuance as narrowly as possible, delivering on our security needs while reducing unnecessary burdens on the vast majority of visa seekers that present a promise not a threat to our nation. Doing so as expeditiously as possible will achieve our shared goals of keeping the country we both love safe and free, a beacon of justice to the world.”

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said on CNN that “this was an extreme vetting program that was not properly vetted.”

“I think we need to -- I think we need to -- at this point, there are -- there’s a stay in effect. Two judges now have issued stays, as I understand it. I think that is appropriate,” Portman said. “Again, it is a temporary ban, as I understand it. In my view, we ought to all take a deep breath and come up with something that makes sense for our national security and, again, for this notion that America has always been a welcoming home for refugees and immigrants.”

Supportive of the executive order:

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, pushed back on the notion that the order was a “Muslim ban” in a statement.

“It’s simply wrong to call the president’s executive order concerning immigration and refugees ‘a religious test’ of any kind. I doubt many Arkansans or Americans more broadly object to taking a harder look at foreigners coming into our country from war-torn nations with known terror networks; I think they’re wondering why we don’t do that already,” Cotton wrote. “With proper procedures for green-card holders and immigrants with a documented history of serving alongside our troops, I think most Americans support these common-sense measures. I also think it’s high time we took action to fix an ill-designed refugee program that harms Christians and other religious minorities who’ve suffered from genocide in Syria. Whatever the media and liberal politicians may say, I’m confident that, under Secretary Kelly’s leadership, these measures will help keep America safe.”

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Montana, tweeted out his support Sunday:

My statement on @POTUS' executive order on refugees: pic.twitter.com/aVCRMIYE1h — Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) January 29, 2017

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, was one of the first to come out in support of Mr. Trump in a Friday evening statement.

“We are a compassionate nation, and I support the refugee resettlement program, but it’s time to reevaluate and strengthen the visa vetting process,” Ryan wrote. “President Trump is right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country.”

Other Republican representatives that are in support of the executive order include: Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pennsylvania, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-South Carolina, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, Rep. Dan Donovan, R-New York, and Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Florida.

Other statements:

Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, issued a statement on Twitter:

We should value freedom & not surrender security. We can protect the homeland while upholding #religiousfreedom & refuge for the persecuted. — Sen. James Lankford (@SenatorLankford) January 29, 2017

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake City Tribune that he had some “technical questions” about the order:

“National security is always the federal government’s top priority, so I am pleased that the White House is focused on protecting the American people,” Lee said in a statement to the paper. “I do have some technical questions about President Trump’s Executive Order titled ‘Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.’ My staff and I will continue to reach out to the White House for clarification on these issues.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, commented on the ban on ABC’s “This Week”:

“I think it’s a good idea to tighten the vetting process. But I also think it’s important to remember that some of our best sources in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are Muslims, both in this country and overseas,” McConnell said. “And we have had some difficulty in the past getting interpreters as you suggested in the earlier segment who are helpful to us treated properly. So we need to be careful as we do this. Improving vetting, something”

Sen. Todd Young, R-Indiana, said this to CBS News:

“The federal government has no more important responsibility than protecting the American people, and refugees from any country should only be permitted to enter the United States if we are certain they do not represent a threat to our citizens,” said Senator Young. “I look forward to carefully analyzing this temporary executive order and its effects, and working with this new administration and my colleagues in Congress to keep America safe while finally ending the unspeakable suffering of the Syrian people. I want to ensure that the administration’s new policy allows Iraqis and Afghanis who faithfully supported our troops and who face threats to their safety -- and who do not represent a terrorist threat -- are able to come to the United States.