Advertisement

4

The Supreme Court issued an important ruling regarding the travel ban this week. A lower court’s ploy to allow 24,000 more refugees into the country by the end of October was deflected.

The Trump administration just won a major court victory. The Democrats’ latest attempt to undercut the travel ban has been foiled. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration’s request to temporarily block refugees from entering the country.

Last week a federal appeals court ruled that refugees who had already inked out a contract with a resettlement organization were exempt from the travel ban. The ruling would have affected 24,000 refugees.

The left has fought against the travel ban at every step. They refuse to acknowledge the dangers associated with rampant, unchecked immigration. Most people in the Middle East would gladly choose to resettle in the U.S.

Advertisement

Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the Government has pointed to in the past,” Hawaii’s state’s attorney Neal Katyal argued in court documents. By the Government’s own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they represent a security threat.”

2

The left hates everything President Trump proposes. A temporary travel ban isn’t inherently a bad thing, yet liberals are reacting as if Trump is awful.

The travel ban is a temporary measure. Opponents must not only prove that a refugee deserves to enter the country, they must also prove that said refugee needs to enter within the next few months. President Trump instituted the ban because of the current rocky political climate. He never claimed that refugees were permanently banned from America.

“Although it may be tempting to see the order as a harbinger of how the court is likely to rule on the merits, it’s better understood as a very modest procedural step to stabilize the full scope of the injunctions against the travel ban over the next four weeks,” said Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law and CNN contributor said.

Advertisement

Key parts of the ban were blocked by liberal appeals courts earlier this year. A few months later, the court threw its support behind the White House and ruled that the ban could be enforced for people without close familial ties to an American.

Lower courts have argued that the ban violates the Constitution as well as federal immigration law. Liberal mouthpieces constantly claim that Trump’s a racist whose sole motive in instituting the ban was to be discriminatory.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review their arguments, however, as Fox News notes: “It’s unclear… what will be left for the court to decide. The 90-day travel ban lapses in late September and the 120-day refugee ban will expire a month later. Trump first rolled out the policy soon after taking office in January and issued a revised version in March.”

3

The Supreme Court has shown more faith in the president’s agenda than many lower courts.

Advertisement

Liberals have argued strenuously against the ban on refugees. People with an American for a close kinsman are still allowed to enter the country as refugees, but at the moment no one else is. The Supreme Court’s decision bolsters Trump’s agenda.

An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones,” Judge Derrick K. Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu wrote. “It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security.”

The President of the U.S. has the right to do what’s best for America. His loyalties should lie with Americans, not refugees. We’re involved in multiple wars; accepting refugees during a time of struggle is a delicate endeavor.

Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Judge Watson wrote. “Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The government’s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.”

The administration chose not to fight the lower courts’ expanded definition of family.