The state of Texas recently came to the aid of the Trump administration in the legal free-for-all surrounding the president’s executive order temporarily barring refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The Texas attorneys argued in a “friend of the court” filing that Trump was well within his constitutional authority to preclude certain foreign nationals from entering the country while officials reassess the vetting procedures applicable to issuing travel visas.
Texas is the only state so far to jump into the fray for Trump, while twenty some-odd other states have taken the opposing side.
Remember the Alamo? They lost that one, too.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
American’s can agree on one thing: That we can’t agree on anything. Just under 2 weeks after District Judge: James Robart blocked Trump’s travel ban, the State of Texas fired back with a countersuit to reinstate it. Leave it to the Lone Star State to eagerly back the Republican Party, even when the constitutionality of the executive order is called into question by yet another Republican. Their claim is simple: That Trump has the constitutional authority as President to impose such a ban.
Trump has criticized Robar, referring to him as a “so-called judge” over twitter. It’s apparent that Robart is a product of the Obama administration, using his authority as a Federal Judge to combat the Republican party, right? It turns out that Judge Robart was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2003 and unanimously confirmed by the US senate the following year. When it comes to his decision to block the Travel Ban, it appears to be an unbiased upholding of the law.
As the Texas Court of Appeals ramps up their case, it seems that it’ll be difficult to bypass the claim that the Travel Ban ultimately targets people of a certain religion. It’s undeniable that radicalism is an issue, but it’s also undeniable that Trump’s executive order is a blatant act of discrimination. It’s apparent that a Republican appointed judge has ultimately determined that, but it remains unapparent that his own party can accept that.
And I suppose if a travel ban was imposed against Norwegians, it would be blatant discrimination because it affected 15% of the people in the world with blue eyes and blond hair? Or a ban against one country in Africa would be discrimination against blacks, because that country is mostly black?
This hardly a “blatant act of discrimination.” And it is certainly not a very good job of discrimination if you are exempting the other 85% of the world’s Muslims.
The world is a different place now, sadly. Even “vetted” U.S. citizens have to walk through the scanner before they can fly from Houston to Cincinnati. If it is inconvenient for people coming from war torn dysfunctional countries that are hotbeds of Islamic extremism to wait a bit longer, that’s just too freaking bad.
.