The President’s efforts to block immigration from certain countries met another roadblock today at the hands of the 4th Circuit Court. As reported by CBS:
“Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,” the chief judge of the circuit, Roger L. Gregory wrote.
AG Sessions disagrees naturally, stating:
“President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe,” Sessions said in a statement. “The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the decision of the divided court, which blocks the president’s efforts to strengthen this country’s national security. As the dissenting judges explained, the executive order is a constitutional exercise of the president’s duty to protect our communities from terrorism. The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.”
This is a very tired, and very wrong assertion. People traveling from these countries are vetted, and are not terrorists by default. It is exactly the divisive language of the Trump campaign, casting all Muslims coming to our country legally as ISIS members, or as “snakes,” calling for a ban of Muslim entry into the country, and even suggesting the need for a Muslim registry that makes the courts see this proposed ban not as a genuine measure to protect Americans but as a method to single out a specific demographic.
The data continues not to support the notion that Muslim immigrants are more likely to conduct terrorist acts or non-terrorism-related crimes. To quote a previous armchair post:
As for terror attacks in the US, a little over half have been planned, attempted and/or executed by US citizens, according to DHS as reported by AP. Business Insider reported that the odds of being killed in a terror attack committed by a foreigner either in the US or abroad is approximately 1 in 45,000, and 1 in over 46 million if your narrow the scope to refugees. The original travel ban was quickly hailed in extremist propaganda and social media for its utility in showing potential recruits that the US and the west in general is anti-Islam, as reported by CNN and other outlets. So not only does the ban not improve national security, it may actually be putting people at greater risk abroad and serve as a tool for radicalization within the US.
This will end up with the Supreme Court. The arguments in favor of the ban have been insufficient to convince the majority of any body of justices so far. Without a strong justification for the ban (there is no way to quantify or qualify that it will actually prevent entry of criminals or terrorists) and with demonstrable harm to American economic interests, American families, and American reputation abroad I do not foresee the majority of SCOTUS justices upholding the ban.