Claims to the contrary, The order is not a “Muslim ban.” It does apply restrictions to immigrants from seven countries – as it happens, the identical seven countries that President Obama designated for restrictions and extra controls. The order stops citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the U.S. for the next 90 days. President Obama signed a law that imposed restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011, and later, President Obama added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, because of, he said, “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.” There are some 40-other majority Muslim-countries in the world on which the Trump administration did not impose immigration restrictions. The new order puts a 120-day halt on refugee admissions from Syria, during which time the vetting process is to be improved.
Yes, the order could have been implemented differently, and the Trump administration bought some trouble in the way this was done, much like the Obama Administration injured itself with the botched roll-out of Healthcare.gov.
As Vice President Mike Pence said when faced with objections from the cast of Hamilton, protests “are what freedom looks like.” We are grateful we live in a nation where protest is allowed, and where people have the Constitutional right to petition for redress or to say what they want. Peaceful protests – even if they may be raucous or offensive to some – are legal, and are protected by law. The Tea Party protests objected to many actions of Congress and President Obama, and the progressive left is objecting to many actions of President Trump. However, we must remember that the majority in Congress passes the laws (that’s how we got Obamacare, for example) and although he cannot make law, the President has a right to issue orders as to how laws should be enforced. President Obama did this as well.
Speaking of executive orders, President Obama contravened Congress with many of his; and many were more “executive legislation” than “executive orders." One reason that the fight for Supreme Court seats is so highly charged with politics is that “judicial legislation” is often the favored way to remake society and our laws – and it is a lot easier than crafting legislation. The progressive left is heavily animated by judicial activism; and just as President Obama tried to write laws with executive orders, many judges and Supreme Court Justices think they can rewrite laws to mean what they want them to.
We do not believe that President Trump’s executive order on immigration is “rewriting the law,” and we think that it will hold up under judicial scrutiny.
To sum it up – President Trump’s order does not discriminate against Muslims, it does not impose a “religious test,” it does not take away Constitutional rights; and – of ultimate importance – it was promulgated in reaction to a long string of terrorist actions committed by radical jihadis who could have been kept out of the country had they been investigated more thoroughly. Had those “red flags” prompted the scrutiny they should have, President Trump would have had no reason to issue his executive order.