A federal judge in Hawaii has placed a NATIONAL restraining order on Trump’s executive order to enforce a travel ban.
Basically, what this action does is belittles the President’s power and ability to run the nation. It’s a typical liberal sissy move, that has no real legal basis; but because he, can the judge did.
Here are some of the ‘arguments’ against the POTUS’s travel ban.
1. The Court Says That The Constitution Bars Religious Discrimination Against Foreigners. This is just asinine. The Constitution does not apply to foreigners. And in fact American immigration policy has differentiated based on culture and religion in the past. The idea that our immigration policy under the Constitution must grant rights to people to immigrate is simply ridiculous. That would mean we could never have an immigration policy that discriminates at all. Which means open borders for everyone, or closed borders for everyone. That’s nuts.
2. The Court Says Motivation Matters, Not Text. The court makes the nutty ruling that Trump’s executive order, which clearly is not a Muslim ban, is actually a Muslim ban. Why? Because Trump said during the campaign that he thinks “Islam hates us,” and said about his first travel ban that it was directed toward radical Islam. Never mind that the new travel ban has no religious language in it whatsoever, that the countries named in the ban were originally named by the Obama administration, and that the court openly acknowledges that the executive order is facially neutral. Nope. They say that Trump said mean things about Muslims, so we can interpret the executive order as an extension of his feelings.
3. The Court Grants Standing Based On Hurt Feelings. The guy who sued in this case was a Muslim American named Dr. Ismail Elshikh. He’s an American citizen of Egyptian descent. The executive order doesn’t apply to American citizens or to Egypt. So how does he have standing?
Kind of pathetic isn’t it?