This past January, shortly after the inauguration, president Trump issued a travel ban and many in our country were incensed. Several judges were consulted and within a week this ban had a restraining order on it. Responding to this restraining order, President Trump fought back against a recent ruling by several courts saying he was discriminating therefore his travel ban was illegal.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” Trump read and periodically paused to add emphasis on certain phrases.
“So, if I find as president that a person or group of people will be detrimental to the interest of the United States, and certainly there are a lot of examples,” said Trump while reading a portion of immigration law 8 U.S. Code 1182.
While the wording of this portion of immigration law is clear, several judges determined this ban is legitimate, and a second ban was drafted leading to another group of judges putting stays on this. If the above ruling is so simple, why are judges fighting his decision?
In January 2016, Jim Lichtman wrote an article discussing US Code 1182 and how the courts should respond to any travel bans. In discussing this code he explained that while President Roosevelt banned the Japanse by nationality, Trump was planning to bad by ideology which is an ethical issue.
Would Donald Trump’s plan calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. hold up based on 8 U.S. Code Law 1182? It’s highly doubtful. While President Carter targeted individuals by nationality, Trump’s plan targets individuals by ideology.
So while this law is valid, other laws are also considered by judges to determine the entire scope of US laws. Currently Trumps Ban is still in court and has been referred to the supreme court with pages of briefs where the majority of judges have ruled that our president has reportedly made it clear he wants to target Muslims, so the bans are based on religious discrimination.
It is understandable that different interpretations of this law can be based on whether it violates other areas of the law, and these decisions can be complicated and require a law degree to fully examine all the details, but the question still remains. Has our president been trying to fabricate fear of Muslims and discriminate using the power of his office?
(CNN)Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for barring all Muslims from entering the United States.
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” a campaign press release said.
Trump, who has previously called for surveillance against mosques and said he was open to establishing a database for all Muslims living in the U.S., made his latest controversial call in a news release. His message comes in the wake of a deadly mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, by suspected ISIS sympathizers and the day after President Barack Obama asked the country not to “turn against one another” out of fear.
In reviewing this and other articles with similar wordings a question comes up. Is Donald Trump really that mean? Is this article really describing a speech filled with hate? Rudi Giuliani disagrees, stating Trump called him right after his campaign speech asking for advice as to how he could help protect our country from future terrorist attacks.
Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a Cabinet position in the new administration, appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump’s executive order temporarily banning refugees came together……….
“I’ll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ ”
Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Donald Trump’s campaign speech in December of 2015 covers this topic in the first 20 minutes (he is introduced and speaking after 2 minutes). While articles are written emphasizing different points from his speech pulling out sections, as Americans we are responsible to decide for ourselves. I Invite you to listen to the entire context of these statements and determine for yourself whether Trump was preaching hate or calling for safety….