The core FLAW in this author's argument is the simple fact that very stringent screening procedures HAVE resulted in a low number of radical terrorists entering the US . So in a convoluted way she argues that more stringent screening if not a ban are unnecessary. Huh?
We also know that all the countries on the list have been targets of US covert or overt action - directly through bombing (Libya, Syria), drone strikes (Sudan and Yemen) or sanctions (Iran). Because they have been US targets, that alone makes them enemies of the USA and therefore in need of careful screening.
She also ignores the point that this is a temporary ban until improved screening measures are in place. Until then why take the risk?
Trump isn't so much making the US safer he is just cleaning up the mess left behind by his predecessor - that indirectly will improve American security.
Fact is Canada also screens applicants from these countries to the point that very few if any get in - we just don't publicise it.