WASHINGTON – More Republicans in Congress criticized the Trump administration on Monday for moving too quickly and without enough thought before barring entry to the United States for refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

However, Republicans who support the ban outnumbered those who opposed it. Illustrating the controversy around the issue, even more Republicans refused to say what they thought, one way or the other.

Those who did express concerns stopped short of saying they’ll get behind Democrats’ attempts to rescind the ban and cut Trump’s authority to curtail travel into the United States.

After staying silent through a weekend of protests, senators including Georgia’s Johnny Isakson, Iowa’s Joni Ernst, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey were careful to say they support the order’s intent to prevent terrorism.

But to varying degrees they said the executive order, banning travel from seven Muslim countries for 90 days and suspending all refugee admissions for 120 days, was ill thought out.

Inhofe said the order is “not a Muslim ban” and is “reasonable given the unrest and state of instability in each of those countries.” But he also said it should have been delayed so that affected agencies, airlines and travelers could prepare.

Ernst, an Iowa Army National Guard commander in Kuwait and Iraq, was among a number of veterans in Congress who said they are concerned that former interpreters who’ve helped U.S. troops are being denied entry.

Ernst said in a statement the administration should protect national security without “inadvertently penalizing our allies in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism – especially those who have supported U.S. military efforts in Iraq.”

Other veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were angered by delays bringing interpreters to safety. John Rowan, president of Vietnam Veterans of America, called on the Trump administration to exempt former interpreters.

Matt Zeller, founder of No One Left Behind, a group that helps get the interpreters settled in the U.S., said in an interview that he and his staff of four received 3,000 panicked calls from interpreters still overseas in the 72 hours after Friday’s executive order.

Zeller said his Muslim interpreter saved his life while he was serving in Afghanistan in the Army in 2008. His interpreter noticed two Taliban fighters sneaking up behind him and shot both to death.

Cleared to fight alongside the U.S. military – then approved by the nation’s security agencies for special visas – some interpreters who were scheduled to flee to the U.S. had quit their jobs and sold their homes, only to be stymied by the order, Zeller said.

He called the ban a “death sentence” for interpreters who put themselves in danger to help U.S. troops.

Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who served four tours in Iraq as a Marine Corps infantry officer, has also opposed the order.

But some Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, including Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., back the travel ban.

Few “object to taking a harder look at foreigners coming into our country from war-torn nations with known terror networks,” Cotton said in a statement.

The Washington Post tallied 78 Republicans in Congress who support the ban as of late Monday afternoon, while another 58 opposed it or have raised concerns.

Among the others, who did not return press inquiries, are Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, and Ted Cruz of Texas.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn said the new administration “got in a big hurry,” but he agrees that people coming into the U.S. should be thoroughly checked.

“People are not used to a president who intends to enforce the borders of the United States,” he said in a statement.

Toomey, also from Pennsylvania, had tweeted opposition to Trump’s call for a ban on immigration by Muslims during the campaign. In a statement Monday, Toomey did not address whether the executive order was the kind of “religious test” he’d opposed.

Toomey said he does support targeting “states that sponsor or provide safe havens to terrorists, or are too weak to prosecute terrorists within their borders.”

But he called the order “flawed … too broad and poorly explained.”

Other Republicans, meanwhile, more strongly evoked the nation’s history of accepting refugees.

Isakson, in a statement, said he supports Trump’s attempt to strengthen national security, but “some important aspects of the process to ensure that this temporary travel ban could be implemented smoothly were overlooked.”

He also said “America should continue to be welcoming to refugees who are fleeing war and persecution and who share America’s ideals and values.”

Inhofe’s seat mate, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., also disputed the order was a Muslim ban in a statement Sunday night, but he added that it “has some unintended consequences that were not well thought out.”

Saying the administration should be careful not to violate constitutional rights, Lankford added, “America can have strong homeland security and uphold our foundational values of religious freedom and refuge for the persecuted. These goals are not mutually exclusive.”

Kery Murakami is the Washington, D.C. reporter for CNHI’s newspapers and websites. Contact him at kmurakami@cnhi.com