In several US states, after a raucous period of time where the Leftists were protesting everything about Donald Trump and his election, activist judges with no business being judges in the first place (who were shopped around for by Leftist Democrats specifically to block each and every travel ban edict that the president was trying to install) worked their Liberal magic, waved their magic wands, and refuted a federal call to heighten national security at a time when terrorism is at an all-time high.
As the travel ban had explained in excruciating detail, this order was not to ban Muslims specifically, but to ensure that terror-prone nations were less likely to be able to send their assassins abroad without a lot of issues. The ban was in plain language and was vehemently struck down by activist judges who were being paid by the taxpayers to be fair-minded and to rule on the law, not on their own partisan sentiments.
After much debate and a monstrous breach of ethics and propriety, two of these judge panels, one in Hawaii and the other in Maryland, attempted to install their own versions of Liberal justice in the travel ban case. Now, a higher court has ruled that the provisions in the travel ban are valid, legal, and enforceable. The ban that Leftists claimed was unconstitutional has been rendered Constitutional!
In a major victory for the Trump administration, a federal court in California has ruled that its travel ban can go partially into effect, allowing officials to prevent entry to individuals from six countries if those individuals have no ties to the United States.
According to Reuters, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Monday that a lower court’s temporary injunction on the revised travel ban issued by the Trump administration on Sept. 24, could be temporarily blocked.
That would allow the Trump administration to bar entry to the United States to would-be travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — all countries with security and/or terrorism issues — who don’t have formal connections to the United States.
“Those connections are defined as family relationships and ‘formal, documented’ relationships with U.S.-based entities such as universities and resettlement agencies,” Reuters noted.
“Those with family relationships that would allow entry include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.”
The plan had been blocked after a judge found that a lawsuit from the state of Hawaii challenging six of the eight countries on the revised list — North Korea and Venezuela, the only two countries on the list that weren’t majority Muslim, weren’t challenged — was likely to succeed.
“We are reviewing the court’s order and the government will begin enforcing the travel proclamation consistent with the partial stay,” Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said, according to Reuters.
While it’s great that the courts agreed for the most part with the Trump administration on the importance of this order, I am somewhat skeptical of the whole “formal connections” ruling and its implications. How many of those who are attempting to enter this country are going to be lying under these circumstances, claiming a personal familial connection to someone already living here?
Your guess is as good as mine, but rest assured this will happen. When illegal aliens from South and Central America are pouring over our borders, many more of them claim family connections than don’t, even when a very large majority of them are operating on the wink-and-nod currency of the illegal: “That’s my cousin over there, right, Jose?” “Yup, he’s my cousin, all right.” I’m not convinced the whole family connection can be disproven by American agents. But we’ll wait and see!
Source: Conservative Tribune, americanconservativeherald.com