President Trump finally seems to have somehow eked out a small victory from the U.S. Supreme Court given that it, yesterday, said the third version of a travel ban by Trump can go into effect while it goes through the review process in lower courts. What that means in the longer term remains to be seen, but it does appear to represent movement in the direction those of us favoring our borders be well protected have desired.
Executive Order 13769 was the first effort and that was almost immediately challenged in federal courts. The second version of that order was generated in the White House and it came under fire immediately. What is being called Travel Ban 3.0, for now at least, will be permitted to go into effect while appeals make their way through federal courts. This order blocks travel of virtually all citizens from Iran, Chad, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. Venezuela came in for special consideration. Government officials and their immediate families are banned from entry. Venezuelans who already hold visas will be subjected to additional screening, whatever that means.
The naysayers are still going after what they see as red meat that just can’t be ignored. The ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, made the statement that “this is not a ruling on the merits, and we continue our fight.”
I wonder if this signal from the highest court in the land will temper the various more liberal branches of the federal court system. The highest court appears to stand 7-2 in favor of the edict to leave the borders restricted during the various court hearings that are underway. If that majority continues to stand, the outcome of these lesser court cases seemingly bear little if any on the ultimate decision. In June just three justices (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy) on the Supreme Court were willing to let President Trump implement his travel ban policy. The swing to a 7-2 block (all but Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) seems to signal a fairly sound majority and would require quite a judicial opinion breakthrough in order for that to change. It is unusual for the highest court to jump into the fray before a case reaches it.
Of course, the cry over “Islamophobia” rang loud and clear from critics without regard to what I see as a very solid set of facts that support the opposition to those uttering that outcry. We are not very open to banning certain parties entry into our country, and that, from my perspective, invites the flow of more and more who have as their interest the destruction of our country, albeit maybe slowly but destroying it nonetheless.
We seem to easily lose sight of realities that exist in this world whether or not we want to acknowledge those realities. Liberal bleeding hearts and solid conservatives do not see eye-to-eye on this or many other subjects for that matter, but this subject is critical in nature.
Not every person desiring access to our heartland is doing so to plot against us from within. A majority do not do that. But, there is a very dangerous blood-thirsty minority that is sworn to destroy us and our system of governance and religious worship. That group does not accept Christianity as a valid faith, and that belief is inculcated from the moment that little person can begin to understand, and is supported and made stronger every step of the way from being a youngster to becoming a young man or woman capable of significant violence that they earnestly believe is the command of that they worship.
We cannot comprehend sufficiently such an inbred hatred of us, and our faith basis, that would lead to the kinds of scenes we’ve become accustomed to seeing in Europe with trucks intentionally crashing into crowds of innocent people for the sole purpose of killing as many as possible to add to the fright and fear of those remaining. If we think we are impervious, all we need to do is look back at the still somewhat isolated such occurrences in our own country.
This ‘issue’ of travel bans for people from certain countries makes a great deal of sense; at the least, these potential immigrants need to go through a stiff vetting process to provide us with the comfort they are not a security threat and that they are going to be able to support themselves and not become an addition to welfare rolls the day they get here.
Our law enforcement agencies need to continue their focus on such groups. The FBI needs to pay particular attention to this realm. We cannot seem to agree on the discussion of a better form of protection along our Southern border, and yet it is still very possible for a person to stroll across our Northern border at will. It is porous if one wishes to cross with an ulterior motive. Traffic rolls across that border day and night. Minneapolis and suburbs have become a magnet given the in place population of immigrants of similar faith and histories.
All this and yet liberal courts move with seeming blindfolds in place to the realities of our world today. This move by our nation’s Supreme Court seems to say that they (at least a majority of them) recognize the potential for problems if the borders are not fully controlled.