Not specifically religious persecution -- it's if you're part of a 'minority religion.' Which seems silly to me. Yes, assessing their level of danger should be part of any vetting and prioritization, but it should be an overall thing. If a person is in more danger (due to political ties, or maybe they helped US forces) than someone who's in a minority religion but otherwise safe, shouldn't the first person have priority?

It's good to go about helping the most vulnerable people. Unfortunately, the proposed methodology in the EO was ham-handed at best, and unconstitutional at worst.