Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Travel Ban Is Legal but Dumb

Irrational, half-baked anti-terrorist policies are not necessarily unconstitutional.

This week the Supreme Court unblocked most aspects of President Trump's executive order limiting entry into the United States, signaling that the restrictions are likely to be upheld. That makes sense, because the reasons that two federal appeals court offered for upholding injunctions against Trump's order are unpersuasive. But the fact that Trump's policy is legal does not make it smart.

The original version of Trump's order was issued in great haste a week after he took office, and it showed. The 90-day ban on entry by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) applied to current visa holders, including people working and studying in the United States, and legal permanent residents, who were barred from returning home after traveling abroad.

Adding to the confusion, the travel ban took effect immediately, stranding residents and visitors in mid-trip without notice. The result was dismay and disorder at airports around the world as officials, travelers, and lawyers grappled with the new policy.

After the order was blocked by the courts, Trump issued a revised version on March 6, clarifying that the travel ban did not apply to legal permanent residents, who have a right to due process when the government tries to prevent their re-entry, or to current visa holders, whose hosts may have standing to sue. Notably, the order issued by the Supreme Court on Monday says that while the case is pending the travel ban should not be enforced against visa applicants or would-be refugees with a "bona fide relationship" to Americans, such as relatives, students accepted by U.S. universities, employees hired by U.S. companies, or lecturers booked to speak here.

The revised order also eliminated Iraq from the list of targeted countries and excised language favoring religious minorities from the section imposing a 120-day moratorium on admission of refugees. Critics cited that preference as evidence that the order was motivated by anti-Muslim bias.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit nevertheless concluded that the March 6 order "in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination." The context that the court deemed relevant consisted mostly of statements made by Trump or his surrogates before and after the election, including his support for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

But that is not the policy Trump actually tried to implement, and relying on his campaign comments to conclude that his executive order is a "Muslim ban" in disguise leads to strange results. The plaintiffs conceded, for example, that if Hillary Clinton had been elected president and issued exactly the same executive order, it "could be constitutional."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit relied on a different rationale when it upheld an injunction against Trump's order, saying he exceeded his statutory authority because he did not make an evidence-based determination that admitting the people he wants to exclude would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." But that was really just another way of saying that Trump's policy, which is supposedly aimed at protecting Americans from terrorists, is half-baked and empirically unsound.

That much is true. Since 1975, no terrorist from any of the countries covered by the travel ban has killed anyone in the United States, and the odds of being killed by a refugee are infinitesimal.

In any case, it has never been clear why a travel ban was necessary for Trump to deliver the "extreme vetting" he promised. Even the "total and complete" Muslim ban he originally proposed was supposed to last only as long as it took to "figure out what is going on," which according to his executive orders means three months.

Trump has been president for more than five months. By his own account, he could have made any necessary improvements in traveler screening by now. His failure to do so provides further evidence that his policy is just for show.

© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ernieyeball||

    Trump's Travel Ban Is Legal but Dumb because...Trump Is Dumb

  • Azathoth!!||

    Thank you, Jacob, for those lovely, salty, hammy tears.

    loser.

  • Anarchist||

    Don't you mean (((Jacob)))?

  • Azathoth!!||

    No.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    YOUR FACE IS LEGAL BUT DUMB.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Adding to the confusion, the travel ban took effect immediately, stranding residents and visitors in mid-trip without notice.


    The possibility that the original travel ban was implemented in such a ham-fisted because of malicious obedience is, in my view, very high. The order was dumb but the way it was rolled out suggests to me that field operators wanted to embarrass the administration by including legal residents in this ban. Not that this excuses El Trumpo and his merry band of Trumpistas, of course. Or the conservative media, who immediately came to the rescue by arguing that legal residents don't have a right to re-enter their home.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Hey, if the cops can tell you it's illegal to re-enter your home (and the firemen likewise), then think of all that juicy power that the border patrol ought to have as well. It's only fair.

  • Agammamon||

    I don't think that the people enforcing the ban did it this way because of any sort of malicious intent towards Trump. These are people who are, after all, *employed* to fuck with you at the border. Its their job, their career. I can believe that this was simply eager compliance with the letter of the order - not much pleases jackboot wearers more than the power to say 'no' to desperate people.

    In any case, the order was what it was - if you don't want your subordinates to enforce it 'immediately' don't put 'enforce it immediately' in the order.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The federal government and, in particular here, the White House has the power to royally fuck up peoples' lives. I'm not necessarily against what they were trying to do, and I believe there was a method to the madness of putting out without notice, but the administration has an obligation when wielding that power to put a little thought into it first.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It was no surprise that Trump would make non-American high-risk people entering the USA more difficult.

    Non-Americans wanting to enter the USA do not have a right to come here.

    With those being said, I hate government caused inconvenience for silly reasons. Keeping high-risk non-Americans out of the USA for 90 days while a new administration comes up with a policy to limit risk is fine with me. I think 90 days is pretty good period considering how slow to react government can be.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: loveconstitutuon1789,

    Non-Americans wanting to enter the USA do not have a right to come here.


    Yes they do. They're human individuals of will and have the same rights as you or me. What they don't have a right to is taxpayer-paid lodging, but immigrants do not enter the country seeking that. They're instead being invited in by The Market. Refugees, on the other hand, are actively imported by the State. That's the difference between refugees and immigrants.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A person from Syria does not have the same rights as me. Syrians do NOT have a Constitution that guarantees their rights to keep and bear arms, for example.

    Same human rights, sure. Unfortunately for Syrians life is cheap outside the USA, so humans right don't really mean shit. They are not all fighting to protect their human rights, so that's on them.

    The Constitution enumerates the power of the US Gov to regulate immigration. Either you don't know this or your are just being a typical open border type.

    You lost the election! On this issue, Trump is trying to do a good job. On this issue, I support the 90 day ban.

  • Agammamon||

    If the Syrian doesn't have the same rights as you then you're all but admitting that your rights are derived from government and not inherent in being a person - and as such are not rights at all.

    The USG certainly doesn't have to *defend* the rights of people outside its borders, it certainly shouldn't be allowed to violate them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As I said, humans rights we share.

    Rights guaranteed by the Constitution- not the same rights for Americans and Syrians.

  • GeoffB1972||

    Our human rights are derived from God. They are universal. The United States government was formed to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It says squat about the rest of humanity. This does not mean others lack human rights, but it does mean that securing them is their problem, not ours.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    No matter what the INS says, it can't go beyond the bounds of our own presidential limits set by the Constitution. This is the legal trouble Trump ran into. But I take it you knew that already.

    But I'm more curious as to why you think Trump is doing a good job on this issue. Its been more than the 90 days he said he needed, and he hasn't come up with better vetting yet, as indicated by the continuance of the global eye-sore that is this muslim ban.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump did not run into legal trouble. The lefties made up fake trouble and that was swatted down by the head court of the Judicial Branch- SCOTUS. But I take it you knew that already.

    Trump did a good job because he tried to stop the flood of high risk immigrants. The Kamehameha kangaroo court banned the EO, so Trump waited to implement the ban. The 90 days starts June 26, 2017.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    I mean thats one way of characterizing it. To me, it looked more like lefties took him to court across like 5 different federal circuits and got injunctions granted in all but one case, held the ban up for more than the time he said he needed it, and will have their case heard in November. The fact that the Supreme Court removed part of an injunction on the second version of the ban says all there needs to be said about "legal trouble." Unless you only consider something "legal trouble" if somebody is going to inevitably lose their case.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would consider legal trouble as you did something wrong rather than constitutionally enumerated checks and balances between the 3 branches of government. Trump did nothing wrong trying to limit high risk immigrants, refugees and visitors.

    Those were District courts, who typically do not have any power outside their judicial jurisdictions. If the Trump administration want to be dicks they could have said that a Hawaiian district court's opinion means nothing on the East USA. The 9th Circuit heard the fake case and still that should have only applied to that circuit's jurisdiction. Either way, the Supreme Court preliminarily heard the issue and reversed the lower court's nonsense.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    A "fake" case? Um. Just check the court records, its there.

    All the cases, obviously, started in federal District courts. Then they went up to the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals (BEFORE they got to the supreme court, and they may have even been heard en banc, i don't recall). Your surprise that an injunction would go outside the jurisdiction isn't unwarranted, but it is also totally normal for these cases. The District court in Texas did the same thing to Obama on immigration.

    It is extremely difficult to have near unanimous decisions across the entire country on something like this. Anything that gets to the Supreme Court is not a case without merit; you'd be hard pressed to find them taking trivial cases, hate to break it to yah.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    District courts have to take fake cases unless there is frivolous cause for dismissal. District courts still dismiss case for lack of standing all the time and send cases up the pipeline for reasons other than having great merit.

    I did not say the Supreme Court takes fake cases. The lower court are political tools on this issue and they push fake cases without merit.

    The Supreme Court now has to take another case off its docket to address split circuits based on Constitutional authority to regulate immigration because TDSers think Trump is dumb.

    That's what are courts are for though. Checks and balances to Executive power. All the lefties will remember that next time their President gets sued. Oh wait, there won't be a lefty President for many decades. Me thinks Obama and his media cohorts bad mouthed any judicial review of the Obama Administration.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Your general grasp of the language is as lacking as Nuestro Gran Caudillo. Something isn't "fake" even if you don't think it has merit, which it clearly did because it went well beyond multiple district courts. Now that said, I won't be surprised if it gets overturned. But courts are as removed from politics as any institution can be, and for what its worth, many of the judges who voted against it were republican appointed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    DC: Your general grasp of reading is lacking.

    fake
    fāk/
    adjective: fake
    1.
    not genuine; counterfeit.

    Not a genuine issue of dispute. The Constitution gives Congress and the Executive authority to regulate immigration. The plaintiffs are saying that Trump does not have that authority.

    The TRO specifically blocks the executive branch from enforcing provisions of the executive order that (1) suspend entry into the U.S. for people from seven countries for 90 days and (2) place limitations on the acceptance of refugees, including "any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities." The TRO also allows "people from the seven countries who had been authorized to travel, along with vetted refugees from all nations, to enter the country." The Trump administration is appealing the TRO"-Wiki, Executive_Order_13769

    BTW: Courts are notoriously political. Those "Republican" judges you mentioned are RINOs. Roberts is another example of a "Republican" but is a RINO. Another example is SCOTUS nominees getting so much political attention. if they were apolitical, then who cares who gets on the SCOTUS if they have some minimum legal experience.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    In law, a genuine issue in dispute typically needs only to be plausible. To have an alternative accounting of this can certainly fall under that standard fairly easily. Ipso facto, not "fake." Perhaps the words you were looking for were "its a weak case" or "they were likely lose." The prior court decisions and the fact that your side was in the minority dissenting doesn't bode well for you. ;)

  • tommhan||

    Judges removed from politics? Not really and just because a judge is appointed by one party does not mean over time that person changes. Many cases have been clearly adjudicated in a political manner and anyone that believes that is not true is lying to themselves for their own cause.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    Are you someone who's admitted from the beginning that Trump's action was 100% legal (but, very dumb, immoral, unjust, illogical, racist, or whatever you like) or is that just your position now?

    I keep talking to folks who (previously) claimed lower court injunction was proper but who *now* tell me the executive action was legal....but dumb or "violative or our deepest and most sacred ethos" and all that bit. As Obama might say "this is not who we are!"

    Sure. I get it. Just curious why folks wouldn't admit it was legal 2 weeks ago.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    A person from Syria does not have the same rights as me. Syrians do NOT have a Constitution that guarantees their rights to keep and bear arms, for example.

    So your argument is that rights aren't something inherent in being born a human being but bestowed (or not) by whichever government you happen to be born under the thumb of? You sure you want to go with that argument here?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    C A:
    Okay, just read my comment and it describes human rights being different from Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    You people don't even read previous posts?

  • Azathoth!!||

    There are one's inherent human rights--and then there are rights that only apply if one is a citizen of the US--like voting rights, rights of representation in Congress.

    See the cat? See the cradle?

  • ImanAzol||

    No, of course they can't. All they can see is, "Trump, durrr."

    It's a waste of time to debate with them. They live in a fantasy world.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So every person on earth has a right to bear arms in the US? Has a right to vote? If so, then citizenship is valueless.

  • Barry soetaro||

    Perhaps you could invite 40 or so to live with you?

  • tommhan||

    You are a f'ing idiot if you really believe that foreigners have the same rights as you and I. Rubbish

  • buybuydandavis||

    They're human individuals of will and have the same rights as you or me.

    They don't have the legal rights of American citizens in America.

    "but muh anarchy!"

    Shrug. They can have whatever rights you want them to have in the Anarchytopia of Imagination Land. In the US, they don't have the rights of Americans.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    The point is that there was nothing that indicated that these people were "high risk" and the vetting was more a racist road show than anything that would make people more safe. As the article points out, this was just to appease his supporters. We already had extreme vetting, but I guess because it was put in place by Obummer it was per se not good enough for supporters of the American Chavista.

  • Rhywun||

    racist

    Which race is that?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What is high risk to you then?

    High risk immigrants to me means people who come from countries that generally hate the USA, have been bombed by the USA recently, immigrants who have lost family members to American bombing, do not support the ideals as set forth in the US Constitution.

    Countries such as: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. There are more too.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    As you kind of indicate, a "person" may be high risk - which is why we individually vet them. Not everyone from a region where we could potentially have stirred up some hate. This is the reason we aren't jailing all white men in the south just for having a few Klan members.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is why we don't prevent most Canadians from coming into the USA because generally they Canadians don't hate America. Nor have we bombed Canada recently. In other words, we don't have problems with Canadians coming into the USA, unless you consider Jim Carrey.

    People from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan are a different story.

    Why do you need to have non-Americans from these countries come to the USA?

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Why do you need to ban categories of people, rather than people?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why do have to have high risk immigrants enter the USA?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why does the government have to establish categories of people like "Immigrants", rather than ________ ?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why do you need to limit anyone coming into the USA, says the open border TDS person.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    I take it today is your workshop on missing the point. I'll pass on trying to fix that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    DC: You lost the election and this debate.

    You cannot articulate why the USA must have all these immigrants and refugees enter the USA?

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Literally not the point. No one has any desire to let dangerous immigrants into the country. But you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the rest of them are welcome, as far as I'm concerned - from an economic or human rights perspective there is more than enough that would justify it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Now your just lying. Sloppy immigration enforcement is the desire and that allows dangerous people into the USA. Stop acting like you care about people from other countries.

    Why does the USA have to take these people?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Unfortunately, the open border crowd also doesn't want review for if the person is dangerous and has no understanding of risk degrees or their generalized sources. If they're not wearing their flashing "Terrorist" sign then they must obviously not be a danger.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The 'open borders at any cost' crowd is insane. Further they're just another embarrassment for the libertarian cause. Just like anarcho-capitalists. It's that kind of shit that makes me extremely reluctant to bring others to Reaaon. That and the progtard leaning articles that have been all to common of late.

  • Azathoth!!||

    As you kind of indicate, a "person" may be high risk - which is why we individually vet them

    And this was the whole point of the travel ban--to put the process on hold until we can come up with a way to adequately vet people so that we can be more sure that we're not importing jihadis along with refugees.

    Or did you miss that?

  • Nuwanda||

    Did we individually vet Germans or Japanese entering the US during WWII?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Were we allowing any of them in at al, during that period?

  • Mercurialirish||

    If I remember my history correctly, we didn't allow EITHER into the US at the time. We were condemned for rejecting the German Jews who were trying to escape Hitler and died as a result.

  • Mercurialirish||

    THERE ARE TWO LARGE WORLD POWERS WHO ARE HAVING VERY LITTLE ISSUE WITH MUSLIM TERRORISM. JAPAN & AUSTRALIA. WHY? BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALLOW MUSLIM REFUGEE'S OR IMMIGRANTS INTO THEIR COUNTRIES. However, Obama did make an agreement with Australia to accept 2,500 Muslim detainee's who were being housed on an island off the main island for the last 3 years. It has been reported that by this time Australia has reported most of them have mental health problems because they have been detained for so long as Australia has stated they will never accept any refugee's who come unapproved to their country by boat.....PERIOD. They have been detained on this island to the point they are all going nuts so let's bring them to the US where we are told that most of the people who commit these terrorist acts are Muslims with mental health issues. Smart call Obama but they are ready to CRUCIFY Trump if he refuses to take them in.
    God Bless,
    Margie

  • ImanAzol||

    Muslim is not a race.

    Muslims from 195 countries, including the two most populous, can freely enter the US.

    Kuwait uses the same list of nations. Are they "Racist" or "Anti-Islamic"?

    You clearly know nothing about the subject other than a few soundbites. This is why you shouldn't talk, or, for that matter, vote. You bring nothing to the table, very loudly.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    It's difficult to vet an individual when they are coming from a country at war, with a porous border and/or no functioning central govt or which doesn't control vasts swaths of their own country. The home country is not able to provide the docs necessary to vet, plus those countries have many groups & individuals that are hostile to the US.

    Those are all the criteria in the law passed during Obama, and Trump listed the same countries that Obama did.

  • Jerryskids||

    IIRC, the ban was rolled out late on a Friday afternoon, after any higher-up's would have headed home for the weekend. That's why, I suspect, the ban was effective immediately, the frontline troops were given these orders and there was nobody around they could question as to how they could or should handle the order. It's like when a memo gets sent down by corporate putting some new rule regarding the TPS report cover-sheets in place, you don't automatically follow the rule, you first check with your boss as to how your boss wants the thing done. If the boss tells you this is some petty bullshit nonsense promulgated by some idiot with too much time on his hands and no knowledge of how the office actually works, tells you you should document your following the rule while at the same time throwing the memo in the trash and just keep doing things the way you've always done them, then that's what you do. If Trump had announced on a Monday morning that this new rule was going to be implemented next week, he would have gotten a hundred phone calls and e-mails from various executives questioning a dozen different aspects of the order - like the constitutionality of the order regarding resident aliens.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    EO 13769 was issued Jan 27, 2017. Seven days after Trump was inaugurated. Weekend travel is some of the busiest of the week.

    I think Trump wanted to implement this policy as fast as possible but only the White House knows why that day was chosen. Seven days is pretty fast for notoriously slow government to react.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    In any case, it has never been clear why a travel ban was necessary for Trump to deliver the "extreme vetting" he promised.


    Making America Grating Again, baby. That's why.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In any case, it has never been clear why the open borders types want high-risk immigrants and refugees to enter the USA?

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: loveconstitutuon1789,

    The open border types say that if the Market was allowed to control immigration like God intended, yoy wouldn't see these problems.

    Trumpistas say "We're all Fascist now."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because putting a 90 day constitutionally authorized limit on the immigrant flood is fascism!

    Hahahaha.

    You are barking up the wrong fasces.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Oh, I must have missed it - where does the Constitution authorize that. The Preamble? Yawn.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Art. I, Sec. 8:
    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    Art. I, Sec. 9:
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    You acting like you don't know. Yawn.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    1) naturalization = citizenship, and it required congress some up with a set of rules; didnt set their bounds, etc.

    2) refers to the slave trade in the US.

    "The detailed enumeration of congressional powers in Article I of the Constitution does not include any power to restrict migration as such, even though it does include the power to make laws concerning the "naturalization" of foreigners and "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." The Naturalization Clause does not create a power to prevent foreigners from entering the country. It merely allows Congress to set conditions for the grant of citizenship."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    2) Is about importing slaves and other migrants. Other migrants being those who are not citizens.

    Naturalization is citizenship and it is an enumerated power of Congress to be enforced by the President. Congress made the law and the President is executing it as he sees fit. Under supervision of the judicial branch.

    Here's the rub on Congress' laws on immigration. Without those laws, the government can simply refuse entry of everyone who is not a citizen of the USA. There is no established right to enter the USA without Congress giving its approval. So, the open border types need Congressional laws to get as many immigrants here as possible but cannot then say that law is unconstitutional because it limits certain high risk immigrants.

  • Mickey Rat||

    If your argument is that US immigration law has been, root and branch, unconstitutional for at least a hundred years, you are probably making a bad argument.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mickey: That is the left's dilemma. US Immigration law has to be Constitutional or the US does not have to accept anyone including refugees, immigrants and visitors. That is why they are not saying Congress is the problem or the law is unconstitutional. Or nobody that I have seen said that.

    Instead they are saying that Trump is racist and there is proof by banning Muslims (I know, being Muslim is not a race), so his ban is illegal because reasons....

    The same Congressional law that gives instruction on rules to allow refugees, immigrants and visitors also gives the Executive Branch power to carry out that law as it sees fit under the guidelines of the immigration law.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Who made that argument? Simply pointing out that the gentleman above us seems to think these powers weren't, in fact, congressional and statutory. In fact, they came from the INS and no matter what they authorized it wasn't explicit in the constitution and is still constrained by it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The President controls the INS and that control was articulated in the EO 13769.

    US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9 enumerates the power of Congress to regulate migration and slavery after 1808.

    I know, all this information that deflates the lefty open border argument is overwhelming.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    I keep forgetting that we had open borders under Bush and Obama.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The USA has never had open borders.

    Its a relative term. Obama wanting to limit people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan is not the same as Trump wanting to limit high risk people from those countries.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Yeah, right. That's all you want to do.

    Please. Trumpistas are also hypocrites. They cite and recite the phony numbers peddled by the anti-immigrant zealots at the CIS for a good reason: because they don't want immigration. Period. They're just forthcoming about it. You know, like Marxists.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Actual ideological Trump supporters are perfectly open about wanting to limit immigration.

    Implicit in America First is that immigration to the US should be limited for the benefit of Americans.

    See Ann Coulter for details.

    There are a lot of Cuckservatives who try to deny it. If you actually believe in government of, by, and for the people, there is absolutely no reason to. US immigration law should be to the benefit of US citizens.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If immigration worked the way nature intended, then you'd be allowed to kill competitors who trespass on your territory.

    That's how nature actually works

    Borders are very, very real--and colored with blood.

  • Cyto||

    It may or may not have been dumb.

    If you were taking office and you believed that our immigration screening procedures were inadequate to the task of preventing enemy agents (terrorists) from entering the country with the intent to harm your citizens, putting everything on hold for a minute while you reviewed and revamped the procedures wouldn't be a dumb idea. It would probably be the prudent way to handle things.

    So why is it dumb? It isn't an immigration policy, per se. I mean, I know we are all in favor of freedom of movement around here, but there actually is a large group of people who are organized around a set of principles that includes the destruction of our nation and the killing of our citizens. How big of a threat they constitute is another matter, but they do exist and they do wish to come here and fight us on our own soil. And it wasn't a final policy, just a "hold on until we figure this out" policy.

    Now, what is actually dumb is saying "we need 90 days to figure this out" and then not getting the 90 days, but still wanting the pause 6 months later. That makes no sense, unless you never were going to figure it out in 90 days. Which is possible, because I sure can't figure out how you can tell if some random 34 year old tourist from Tunisia is coming here to blow up Rockefeller Center.

    But that is beside the point. The 90 day pause in movement across borders isn't entirely irrational, but it is moot.

  • Agammamon||

    Sure, but he said he needed 90 days for a 1st pass on the vetting and procedures. 90 days is nothing. He could have just as well just gone and done the look over without touching anything and then presented the changes to be implemented (and *then* put a hold on immigration for long enough to put in place and train people on the new policies) without compromising the safety of the US. Its not like terrorists are *flooding* in and closing things for a 90 day window isn't making a big difference in risk but it is screwing over a large number of innocent people.

    So, in this situation, yeah, it kind of is irrational. Its only necessary if there were terrorists coming in every week and we were under siege.

  • Cyto||

    That is also one of the unstated premises.

    That there is indeed a flood of terrorists heading our way. Or at least an honest belief that such a thing is happening. A lot of people around the water cooler hold those beliefs. Those are the Trump voters. Trump's understanding of these issues seems to be "water cooler" deep, so it would be reasonable to assume that he actually thinks that putting things on hold while we figure it out is the smart thing to do.

    Your point about "and training" is a good one.... I doubt Trump had any clue as to what it would take to get a bureaucracy trained on new procedures. Every CEO I have ever worked with had unrealistic ideas about how long things take to get done, and he's used to having his sharp young VP's getting things done. It would probably take a year t realistically draft and implement and major policy changes on how visas are vetted, given the size of the bureaucracy and the type of employees we are talking about.

    I've worked extensively in "startup world", where Trump probably lived most of his life. We often rolled out a new program or feature the same day that we thought it up in the board room. I'd have my developers building and deploying that day, and that afternoon we'd run out and do an impromptu training with the staff. That ain't gonna fly in the Federal world though. It doesn't even fly in big corporations.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    "That there is indeed a flood of terrorists heading our way. Or at least an honest belief that such a thing is happening."

    This is a good point. I just think the premise is unsound. He's the president, at this point even a week in he had the resources to figure out if we were actually at risk. Either he didn't ask, or he did it just to satisfy a silly campaign promise. Most likely the latter.

    As to the deadline, sure it was silly. I'm less annoyed by it not taking 90 days then the fact that it was based on, apparently, nothing but allegedly "honest," but uncorrected belief.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why do you have to have high risk immigrants come to the USA?

    Why is the President executing his enumerated power to regulate immigration such a trigger for you?

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    I don't want high risk immigrants coming to the US. If you've say, worked with ISIL, you shouldnt be coming here. If you were a translator for the US army, you sure as hell deserve a place in this country.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why does a translator who worked with the US Army "deserve" a place in the USA?

    I disagree. I think they should fight for their own rights in their country. People from countries that the USA has bombed and killed family members are not low risk immigrants. An example of a low risk immigrant would be from Canada who has American citizen family members that have been Americans for a full generation.

    Even the Founding Father did not trust immigrants who were not natural born citizens and 14 year residents No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    Luckily, Trump's policies on limiting high risk immigrants is one I support and was given the green light by the SCOTUS.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    By "green light" I assume you mean the 3 people that dissented indicating that they would vote to allow the ban when the case is heard in November. Here's a link to help you figure out how many votes you'll need to win at the Supreme Court: https://www.google.com/.

    In any event, qualifying to run the country is just a little bit different than qualifying for a job on a farm in northern california. And your take on people who helped out the our Veterans is reprehensible and I won't be touching it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. Green light.

    Dissents don't matter in how cases move along. The TRO was lifted and the conservative justices will uphold the Constitutional authority of Congress and President Trump to regulate immigration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As a veteran, I find your reprehensible comments about allowing people the US uses to further its war goals would make good Americans.

    Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you want to help Americans kill other countrymen without good cause and then your countrymen want to kill you, sucks to be you.

    Why would I want someone to be an American and be prepared to fight for the freedoms we hold dear in the USA when these people will not even stay and fight for their own country to be free?

  • phandaal||

    Veteran here. I can tell you that in my case, the interpreters we worked with in Afghanistan held ideas and beliefs that were incompatible with American ideals, and especially with things that the commentariat here hold dear to their hearts.

    For example, when discussing religion: one interpreter was shocked speechless when I told him I wasn't a Christian or Muslim. According to him, you had to be either one or the other (preferably Muslim of course) or you were "nothing."

    Another example: the interpreters we worked with universally held that gays were sub-human.

    They also had no qualms about seriously mistreating anyone poorer than them. And these were by any standard some of the more "liberal" members of their society.

    Of course, if you, I dunno... VET THEM before they come into the country you can figure out if they will integrate into your society instead of do their best to wipe your culture away in favor of what they believe is right.

  • Taoist||

    "That much is true. Since 1975, no terrorist from any of the countries covered by the travel ban has killed anyone in the United States, and the odds of being killed by a refugee are infinitesimal."

    Stop lying. The 2016 Ohio State terrorist attack was Somali. And that's with 30 seconds of Google.

  • Taoist||

    Or did you not count that because you're classifying it as "workplace violence" or some other such inanity?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That's the lie that the left tells to get their high-risk people into the USA.

    I always ask why does the left want these high-risk people to enter the USA?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It helps them break down conservative traditionalism. progtards don't think a nanosecond beyond that

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: Tapist,

    The 2016 Ohio State terrorist attack was Somali.


    That's still an extremely low number of people killed since 1975, T. The greatest mass murderers in the history of terrorist attacks in this country are still the Saudis, and they're not banned from coming in.

    Let yourself be bamboozled by El Trumpo but don't expect the rest of us to accompany you in your way to drink the Kool Aid.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So, if Trump listed banning Saudi Arabians you would be fine with the ban from 7 countries?

  • Delius||

    No, because it would still be a dumb and utterly ineffective way to address the problem. But at least it would be slightly less inconsistent.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Then why do open border types like to bring up the ban is BS unless Saudi Arabia is banned too?

    Because the whole protest of the ban is bull crap TDS.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Didn't think so.

    You have TDS.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    And in that 30 seconds, you missed that he did not kill anyone?

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    LOL

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because that is the only worthy metric today.

    Tomorrow the metric will be ______ , according to TDSers.

    Luckily, how many people immigrant terrorists kill is not the only reason to keep high risk immigrants out of the USA.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Yeah, but its too over-broad - why do we ALSO need to keep low risk immigrants out of the country, who's lives may be in danger?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why is that America's problem?

    Why does the USA need to take in so many low/medium/high risk people?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Nothing more important than importing an unlimited amount of potentially dangerous indigents from other countries who share none of our values.

  • TG1618||

    The only death in the Ohio state attack was the terrorist. I also figured it out through google, except I actually clicked on the little down arrow for additional information.

    But the Bowling Green massacre... that's a different matter entirely

  • Long Woodchippers||

    The last 40 years is not relevant. It's what the threat is now. These countries are full of jihadis and people who wish to harm the US and most of them are incapable of providing the necessary information to vet people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "The original version of Trump's order was issued in great haste a week after he took office, and it showed. The 90-day ban on entry by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) applied to current visa holders, including people working and studying in the United States, and legal permanent residents, who were barred from returning home after traveling abroad.
    Adding to the confusion, the travel ban took effect immediately, stranding residents and visitors in mid-trip without notice. The result was dismay and disorder at airports around the world as officials, travelers, and lawyers grappled with the new policy."

    It was a surprise after Trump was elected that he would limit non-Americans entering the USA because he campaigned that Obama's administration was allowing high-risk people to come to the USA.

    It was then a complete surprise when Trump was inaugurated that he immediately implemented a 90-day hold on non-Americans entering the USA.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Since 1975, no terrorist from any of the countries covered by the travel ban has killed anyone in the United States, and the odds of being killed by a refugee are infinitesimal."

    Has ISIS been in existence since 1975?

    A recent analysis of terrorists who have struck Europe over the last two years showed that 80% had traveled to or from Syria. I've read that dozens of Minneapolis' Somalian refugee community have traveled to join ISIS and a number of them have been convicted or plead guilty for trying to join ISIS.

    If government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights, and if immigrants or refugees from certain areas that have been compromised by anti-American terrorist groups present a threat, then the government has a legitimate libertarian responsibility to protect us from those threats to our rights.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    If government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights,


    Which means it doesn't have a legitimate purpose at all. You don't protect rights by assuming that you get to bestow rights. That is an irreconcilable contradiction. Rights are gifts from God or exist by our very nature as human individuals of will - take your pick. Banning someone from peacefully entering a country you were invited in (by an actual person, not by the State) is an action very much removed from the supposed and valid purpose of government.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sorry, but individual people in the USA don't get to say who comes into the USA and who doesn't.

    The Constitution enumerates that power to Congress, for the President to execute any immigration laws, and the for the judiciary to reviews said immigration laws.

    There are ways to change the Constitution as provided for in the Constitution.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not an anarchist, but I'm okay with anarcho-capitalist arguments against the government.

    Just don't tell me that terrorism isn't a threat to our rights.

    P.S. Refugees have also become a rent seeking opportunity for Chobani, meat packing companies, and other companies who, with subsidies from the government for hiring refugees, can employ refugees for costs that are effectively below the minimum wage.

  • Jerryskids||

    If you paid any attention during the campaign, you might have a suspicion that Trump views Constitutional rights as a shield scumbags and criminals use to hide behind and he's got no patience for that kind of nonsense. ("Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people.")

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because what Trump says and does are exactly the same.

    Trump blabs nonsense sometimes and sometimes says things I support. Except for Trump's military excursions overseas and the drug war, I support Trump' actions so far as President. This includes limiting immigration from high-risk areas for 90 days.

  • TG1618||

    He isn't limiting immigration from high risk areas. Most terrorist attacks in the US attributed to foreigners were committed by Saudi or Egyptian nationals, which were never included in the ban.

    He picked a bunch of countries that sound Muslim and are too weak to put up a stink.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oman is not on that list. It sounds Muslim.

    Indonesia is not on that list. It it a Muslim nation.

    So, if Saudi Arabia was on the list, you would support limiting immigration for the Trump administration to vet immigrants as it sees fit?

    Didn't think so. Your TDS to anything that Trump does to limit immigrants is apparent.

  • ||

    You're valid point aside, you must admit it was for (geo-)political concerns that Saudi Arabia wasn't put on the list, based on the criteria.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Past performance does not guarantee future results.

    The word has changed since 2001. Congress passed and Obama signed a law that specified how to identify countries of concern and Trump followed it.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Even the "total and complete" Muslim ban he originally proposed was supposed to last only as long as it took to "figure out what is going on," which according to his executive orders means three months.


    Oh, snap!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Trump has been president for more than five months. By his own account, he could have made any necessary improvements in traveler screening by now. His failure to do so provides further evidence that his policy is just for show."
    The show court in Hawaii issued an order preventing Trump from implementing his immigration restrictions.

    In other words, the 90 days does not start until the Supreme Court gave the go ahead Monday, June 26, 2017.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    And?

  • Jerryskids||

    So you're saying Trump's 90-day travel ban was the "extreme vetting" he talked about? Well, shit, the whole thing makes sense now. Here I had the idea that his statement that we need to have a temporary halt until we can figure out what the hell's going on meant something more than that "what the hell's going on" is a travel ban.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There has been no travel ban nor extreme vetting because the aloha court stopped that.

    The 90 days started June 26.

    My opinion of extreme vetting is much stricter than what Trump has in mind. I would not let in immigrants who are risky, from countries where they don't like us.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    The 90 days started on January 27. The Hawaii injunction was March 15.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    So youre saying he couldn't "figure out what was going on" without the travel ban in place? Why the heck not?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why do you have to have so many high risk immigrants come to the USA?

  • GILMORE™||

    1 - you're conflating travelers, refugees, and 'immigrants' all at the same time

    2 - the question (which you're begging) as to whether anyone is 'high risk' applies mostly to the latter 2 categories; and the state department makes that call when issuing visas or approving refugee status. Why does the state dept grant those things, and what #s do they aim to approve? See the law (linked below);

    3 - re: "So many" - the numbers aren't "so many" at all. The refugees and immigrants admitted from 'risky' countries are relatively paltry compared to our total annual immigration. Whether those numbers should be higher or lower (or none at all) is a matter of policy that the president has clear authority over. but simply because the president has that authority doesn't de-facto make any decisions by default 'good' OR 'bad'.

    see below the point about how its all bullshit, and most people on either side don't really know what they're talking about.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "Legal But Dumb" should probably be the new national motto, since "E Pluribus Unum" was a bust.

  • Rhywun||

    Legal but Dumb

    Yeah, it needed more countries and no time limit.

  • Delius||

    Because isolationism is such a winning economic and political strategy?

  • Rhywun||

    Is it a losing one?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because saying whoa to immigration floods is isolationism.

    When has Trump advocated for isolationism again?

  • BYODB||

    Well, Trump is pro-tariff on foreign-made goods which is pretty idiotic and is in general considered a thing that isolationists are fond of...

    Whether something like that makes him an isolationist or not is probably up to the bias of the person talking about it though.

  • ||

    Let's not conflate that isolationism means trade, international affairs, politics...That's just absolutely asinine.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "In any case, it has never been clear why a travel ban was necessary for Trump to deliver the "extreme vetting" he promised. Even the "total and complete" Muslim ban he originally proposed was supposed to last only as long as it took to "figure out what is going on," which according to his executive orders means three months."

    Being progressive is all about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good, and Barack Obama was the embodiment of that ethos. From the Iranian nuclear deal to ObamaCare and from the Paris climate accord to Obama's refugee policy, he abused his authority as president to force sacrifice--by the American people--for what he considered to be the greater good.

    In the days after Trump was elected, Obama made some outrageous deals to take in refugees that were absurdly dangerous. The agreement to take in the refugees that Australia has rejected is an excellent example. Never mind terrorism, the children among the refugees that Australia is holding off shore were being sexually assaulted so routinely, they had to start sending families with children to another facility.

    Obama agreed to bring those refugees to the U.S., not in the interests of the United States or our security but in the interests of the refugees themselves. Everything Obama did on refugees over his last days in office needs to be carefully reviewed.

  • KevinP||

    Since 1975 ... the odds of being killed by a refugee are infinitesimal.

    The Tsarnaev brothers could not be reached for comment.

  • Delius||

    The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Statistically, you are in much, much, MUCH more danger from good, honest American citizens than from refugees.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So now you open border types go from NO IMMIGRANTS KILLED AMERICANS YET! to
    YOUR ODDS OF MURDER FROM SAID IMMIGRANTS IS LOWER THAN DOMESTIC TERRORISTS!

    Examples are not examples in your World.

  • GILMORE™||

    Yes the EO was always stupid. The objections to it were also stupid. The debates people are having about it here is stupid. The claim that we should be making policy decisions based on some arbitrary "odds" of being killed by terrorists is stupid.

    (*the risk of nuclear war is infinitesimal, yet we haven't disarmed our nuclear arsenal; "risk" in geopolitics is not the same as probability, please stop using these stupid comparisons to lightning strikes etc. terrorism is not a fucking environmental threat - its a political threat)

    claiming the EO is racist is stupid; pretending that the US refugee policy was ever particularly generous in the first place is stupid

    (obama raised the target for refugee intake for 2017 to 100,000 just so Trump would take flak for lowing it to 50,000. you know what the average annual refugee intake during Obama's tenure was? around 65,000; and 50K isn't "low". Refugees aren't a constant)

    trying to conflate refugee policy with immigration policy is stupid; pretending we don't actually already have immigration targets which create artificial limits from places like "iraq" is stupid (and ignorant). Refugees who would rather settle in the US rather than Europe aren't stupid. But if they can afford to relocate to the US without major financial aid rather than resettle somewhere far more close at hand, they're probably not really "refugees" in the first place.

  • BYODB||

    The real reason the executive order was dumb, to me, is because people who come from those countries probably can't really be vetted at all. You really think Yemen has any clue who is a terrorist or who isn't? And even if these countries did know who was a terrorist, I don't think they would bother mentioning it to the Great Satan.


    So, yeah, it won't do anything to check their background when there isn't one to check.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    But if Trump said, nobody from Yemen is allowed into the USA because we cannot do typical USA background checks on these people....

    That's why 90 days is not an outrageous Executive Branch policy regarding immigration. Well, to people who do not have TDS anyway.

  • GILMORE™||

    the banning of "travel" and the suspension of the refugee admittance are two entirely separate things.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Of course they are separate things but not separate in why the USA needs to take them in. There is a distinct odor of these people having some right to enter the USA. There is no such right.

    The more the open borders types push for the USA has to take in these people, the more I ask why is it imperative that the USA takes in these people?

    We did have a problem with visitors not leaving the USA, so "travel" for non-Americans wanting to stay in the USA illegally is not the same as me wanting to travel to Europe. Europe does not have an epidemic of Americans skipping visa termination dates and staying illegally.

  • GILMORE™||

    Of course they are separate things but not separate in why the USA needs to take them in

    they fall under entirely different sets of law and have entirely different rationales and processes involved. conflating the two results in people making stupid claims about what the policy issues are.

    why is it imperative that the USA takes in these people?

    Its not 'imperative' and i don't know who you think is claiming it is.

    We have a process for admitting refugees that stems back to 1980s law. the US has never been an aggressive or generous in admission of refugees. temporary halts to the program would be neither unusual or particularly odd; resumption of the 'normal' policy would by no means be generous or open-door.

    My point above and elsewhere is that neither side of this issue seems to have the first clue what they're talking about.

    We did have a problem with visitors not leaving the USA

    Again, you're conflating travel restrictions with refugee policy.

    And the travel restrictions in the EO had nothing to do with that claimed problem

    (please show me data where travelers from ME countries were somehow uniquely overstaying visas compared to travelers from other countries)

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    The onus hasn't been on us to find out about their background, they need a ridiculous amount of people and documents to convince us of their story. The lack of documentation hinders immigrants who want to come in, not background checkers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Boo hoo.

    Imagine the nerve of Americans wanting everyone who wants to stay in the USA to like America and want to assimilate to make American better than the shithole they probably came from.

  • GILMORE™||

    This is mostly true.

    The 'vetting' already done by the State Dept was probably as thorough as could be done.

    The idea of "extreme vetting" is as stupid a headfake by the right as "universal background checks" is by the left.

    e.g. the latter implies to a gullible public that we don't actually do 'proper' background checks in the first place; and it also implied that somehow there are many relevant, unexplored areas of 'background' which we've hitherto ignored for no good reason.

    With the 'vetting' nonsense, they suggest that we're not putting enough labor into scrutinizing applicants. the reality is as you suggest - that we could quadruple our efforts and get little more than we got at first glance. And if someone was trying to mislead US authorities it would be child's play to do so.

    the issue people dance around is the fact that what we really do is "Profiling". We pick people with families, and we prefer people who aren't fundy-muslims.

    The US has had a bias to non-muslim ME refugees for years, during Obama's tenure as well. (in 2016, half of all refugees admitted were christian, despite the majority being from 'muslim' countries)

    Getting refugee status *relies* on being able to claim persecution. The left would have you believe this was some invention of the Christian Right - and Trump himself pretended he was making some big change by demanding that Christians be prioritized

    its all bullshit

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its not bullshit to figure out what is being done to investigate people wanting to enter the USA. Politics are bullshit.

    Most people entering the USA will visit and leave or apply to stay and try to be good Americans. Unfortunately for those people, there are weeds in the grass.

    We don't need more weeds or grass. At least for a while. Let the weeds kill each other.

    If the people do not want to be free enough to fight for freedom, then I cannot count on them to fight the lefties for our freedom here in the USA.

  • GILMORE™||

    Its not bullshit to figure out what is being done to investigate people wanting to enter the USA.

    Is there some reason you can't just go to the state department website and read about how admissions policies have worked for decades?

    the rest of your comment is barely coherent. If you're replying to something i said, quote it inline

  • Homple||

    Most likely, Trump wanted the way cleared by the courts to use 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens in the future in a hurry if he wanted to.

    Here's the relevant part.


    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    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.
  • GILMORE™||

    I know the law.

    if you think the EO was actually a stalking horse intended to confront very-liberal-apellate-courts and force them to clarify the limits of presidential powers, i think you might be giving more credit to the sophistication of the legal-thinking of the Trump admin than they've yet demonstrated.

    if they really just wanted to set a precedent for some future-exercise, i think they could have tailored a narrower EO that wouldn't have generated quite as much physical disruption w/ the TSA, etc... and been harder for courts to quickly characterize as based on 'anti-muslim animus', etc.

    But i do think your point is a hell of a lot more insightful than most. I'm just leery of attributing sophisticated thinking to Trump's team when 'hamhanded PR to appease yokels' provides just as good an explanation

  • buybuydandavis||

    The real reason the executive order was dumb, to me, is because people who come from those countries probably can't really be vetted at all.

    We shouldn't let people in at all who we can't vet.

  • phildraws||

    This makes sense

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yeah, if it covered ALL "Muslim" countries and banned for 4 years ALL tourism, immigration, school visas, and any other reason a Muslim might come here, then it would be smart.

  • Orf||

    Sullum is invariably wrong, so why is he still being published here? He does not understand the problem of immigration itself, not just the Muslim ban. To critique every dumb point of his would be too much for this comment. Simply delete "Sullum" and you will have improved Reason.

  • MDP||

    Not nearly as dumb as the TSA

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Damn straight!

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Wearing the same leather jacket 24/7 is legal but dumb as well.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.

    Who says they're ignorant?

    Davis's Razor
    Predictable and predicted consequences of an action that benefit an actor are likely *intended* by the actor.

    There is nothing mysterious here. If you want ever expanding government power, increasing societal division is the way to go, particularly when it is associated with increased violence. Divide and conquer the peasants.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • Barry soetaro||

    I'm surprised the left is so ignorant of Islam.
    You open border morons should read up on the Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah to get a clue.
    He was rather like the John Wesley of Islam.
    Westernized islamics are peaceful but still allow sharia and all its horrors. The reason so little Islamic violence is occurring here is the scarcity of Muslims. The violence isn't because of men misinterpreting the religion, such as with The Inquisition; it is written into the texts of Islam.
    You're highly unlikely to see a reformation you did with Christianity because there's no controlling hierarchy within Islam.
    One need only look at what's happening in France, especially, and Europe generally.
    As of two weeks ago, the area around Le Bourgot airport was quite dangerous. Even the tourist info says so (I should have listened) and being quiet won't help.
    I'm always amused at lefties.
    You people with your lib ideas would be the first to watch your women abused and get a knife in the gut.
    Wise up. They're not all bad, but most are inert when opposed by those who ARE bad.

  • masterslave||

    Your words won't look any less stupid by repeating them twelve times.

  • marshaul||

    I still haven't seen anyone cite the explicit Constitutional authorization.

    Lack of obvious conflict with the enumerated BoR doesn't cut it.

  • Lord_at_War||

    What happened between 1920 and 1964?

  • Lord_at_War||

    Now, let's talk about Korematsu- Cam Trump "Constitutionally" put every Muslim-American citizen into an "internment" camp"?

    Has Congress ever refuted this power? Sounds like no- from the 3rd or 4th best President in history (if you believe historians).

  • aajax||

    So the Constitution does not guarantee freedom from government stupidity. I guess we knew that already.

  • LifeStrategies||

    You continue to allege that "Since 1975, no terrorist from any of the countries covered by the travel ban has killed anyone in the United States." But this is simply NOT true - It's fake news. The following article: "Study Proves Judges Wrong — 72 Convicted Terrorists Have Come From Travel-Ban Countries" at http://www.dailycaller.com/201.....countries/

    cites the actual study at: http://www.cis.org/vaughan/stu.....ting-order

    "A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump's vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president's order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in."

    Now "72 individuals from the seven countries have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks" does not necessarily mean that anyone was killed, but since Obama blocked full information the chances are that at least one person was killed. This means you're reporting fake news. Reason is a respected news outlet and you spreading lies is NOT support its mission of free minds...

  • tommhan||

    This writer does not understand that this is just a show of power to inform terrorist it will be more difficult to come here and we are constantly watching and looking for ways to find them and to learn better vet them.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination."

    WrongFeelz Alert!

  • ||

    If Trump's Travel Ban saves one American person's life from islamic terror, it will be a total success.

  • TheWildWebster||

    While I find articles on subjects like this to be inane, the 'saves one life' argument doesn't really hold up. (just stop to consider how many things you might be able to justify if it only saved one life - you could kill 99,999 people and if it saved 1 life, it would be a total success!)

  • Lord_at_War||

    I tend to agree with the assertation that immigrants/refugees are generally okay, but their children tend to be true assholes.

    Orlando.
    San Bernadino.
    Boston.
    Minneapolis.

    You want to know how to stop Muslim terrorism in the the US? Don't let their parents in...

  • TheWildWebster||

    Considering some of the idiotic things I've seen written in some articles on the so-called Reason.com website, you guys would be the experts and know what qualifies as Dumb [sic] from experience.

    (and, I included the [sic] above as the more appropriate term is 'stupid' as 'dumb' refers to someone that cannot speak)

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    "Irrational, half-baked anti-terrorist policies are not necessarily unconstitutional."

    But are more than we get from the genius' in residence at Reason and Cato.

  • Mekial||

    What is the great benefit we receive from immigrants from any of the named countries, and others in the region, that justifies chancing any repeat of San Bernardino, Boston, or Orlando attacks.

  • Mark P||

    All politicians do things partly for show, but Trump vetting emphasizes immigration based upon pro-American values. Just as a professional sports team or a corporation engages in vetting in order to bring in people who will make them better, a country should do the same. Denying terrorists entry into the U.S. is not the only issue.
    1. We should also deny criminals entry, so we need to be able to do criminal background checks. Europe has had a problem with immigrants engaging in rape (though they try to cover it up). Rapists are not technically terrorists, but they are still a huge problem and destroy the lives of many women.
    2. We should also deny immigrants who come to American only for free handouts (welfare, free education, medicaid etc). Freeloaders are not terrorists, but they don't help the country become better.
    3. We should also deny immigrants who are anti-American and refuse to assimilate. It is well known that Arab Christians have suffered persecution throughout the Middle East, and many have been killed because of their religion in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. They would make terrific immigrants, but it is a well known fact that Obama's policy had a extremely strict policy over letting in Arab Christians and a very loose policy over letting in Arab Muslims, even though they were less likely to assimilate. Trump's emphasis on pro-American immigrants is refreshing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online