Trump’s Travel Ban: First Big Showdown With The Supreme Court [Video]

According to Reuters, Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants. Just before the latest ban was announced, Trump wrote on Twitter that the restrictions “should be far larger, tougher and more specific – but stupidly that would not be politically correct!”

The challengers have argued the policy was motivated by Trump’s enmity toward Muslims, pressing that point in lower courts with some success by citing statements he made as a candidate and as president. As a candidate, Trump promised “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Isn’t that is exactly the type of ‘political correctness’ President Trump was referring to? While trying to make a Nation safe from known terrorist supporting countries can we afford to be politically correct?

As Reported By Linda Wheeler With The Hill:

The Supreme Court will close out arguments for the term on Wednesday by weighing the constitutionality of President Trump’s third attempt to block nationals from majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

Hawaii’s state government, the Muslim Association of Hawaii and three individuals have been battling for the last 15 months different iterations of the ban Trump contends is needed for national security, arguing it’s tainted with animus toward Muslims.

Hawaii argues the latest ban unconstitutionally discriminates against Muslims and exceeds the president’s powers over immigration delegated to him by Congress.

The administration says the president has broad constitutional and statutory authority to limit immigration.

The Supreme Court initially agreed to consider Trump’s second order, which banned people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. It then dismissed that case as moot when the ban expired before the scheduled arguments.

Trump’s latest ban, issued by a presidential proclamation, swaps Sudan for Chad, and made the restrictions on travelers from the affected countries indefinite. Chad has since been dropped from the list.

The proclamation also included new restrictions on nationals from North Korea and government officials from Venezuela, but those provisions are not being challenged in this case.

Again though, we wonder can a Nation trying to make it’s citizens safer afford to be politically correct? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Send this to a friend