Benefits of travel ban far outweigh inconveniences
The U.S. Supreme Court recently approved parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries, it was reported.
Governments in the six countries identified reportedly do not assist U.S. officials in trying to determine if those countrymen traveling to the U.S. are known to be terrorists.
So the U.S. must do more itself to prevent such people from traveling into the country to do us harm.
It makes sense to me.
The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked key parts of a March 6 executive order issued by President Donald Trump.
The court issued its order on the last day of its current term and agreed to hear oral arguments during its next term starting in October so it can decide finally whether the ban is lawful in a major test of presidential powers.
In a statement, President Trump called the high court’s action “a clear victory for our national security,’’ saying the justices allowed the travel suspension to become largely effective.
“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive,’’ Trump said.
Trump’s March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures.
The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.
Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about terrorist attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities.
But challengers blindly said no one from the affected countries had carried out attacks in the United States, so far.
Federal courts earlier said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Critics called it a discriminatory “Muslim ban.’’
But non U.S. citizens do not have have the same Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens.
And the President has the authority to take steps he believes to be necessary to protect the American people from enemy combatants.
Groups that challenged the ban, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that most people from the affected countries seeking entry to the United States would have the required connections. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could.
In an unsigned decision, the Supreme Court said the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.’’
In other words, if the foreigners from the six countries identified do not have any business – or good reason – for being here, then they will not be here while the U.S. government checks them out.
A lack of a clearly defined relationship would bar from entry people from the six countries and refugees with no such ties, it was reported.
Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 one issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts.
The case was President Trump’s first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have a connection to the United States and those who do not will prove unworkable.
“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,’’ Thomas wrote.
The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion.
But clearly, misguided people, the travel ban has never been about religion. Quite the contrary. It’s about evil that lives in the world, under a disguise, from six Muslim-majority countries.
The travel ban won’t stop all of the terrorist thrreats in this country. But it will stop some of them. And that’s a good start.