March 16, 2017
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 –“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 … 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,”
Hawaii Federal District Judge Derrick K. Watson relied on comments made by President Trump and surrogates on the campaign trail part of his reasoning in suspending the revised executive order Trump signed temporarily banning immigrants and refugees from 6 Middle East countries from entering the U.S. for a period of 90 days.
The suit was brought by Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, who argued that tourism to Hawaii would be adversely affected by the ban and the state’s university system would have recruiting students. It’s estimated that the ban would drop tourism by about 100 people.
Judge Watson and Chin also stated that even though the executive order does not employ a religious test, they believes it’s real purpose is to discriminate against Muslims. They says they don’t believe the travel ban is about national security. Neither one has ever used their special powers of seeing something that’s not there before.
Chin also filed the suit on claims of damages to Hawaii Muslims’ feelings and perceptions of the world. The new suit adds a new plaintiff, a man named Ismail Elshikh, is imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. Elshikh and his buddies at the Muslim Association “believe that, as a result of the new executive order, he and members of the mosque will not be able to associate as freely with those of other faiths.” It’s not clear how they dreamed up that nonsense, but they did.
He goes on to claim his children are “deeply affected” by Trump’s executive order. Elshikh is also sad and upset that his mother-in-law, who hasn’t been to the U.S. since 2005, can’t come visit with her grand-kids. He explained that she is really stressed about not being able to come. No-one has explained why she waited until this exact moment to decide to visit, but odds are that it has something to do with the anti-Trump attitude that’s permeating the left.
What the suit in Hawaii boils down is it is hurting some peoples’ feelings and making them feel bad. That could set a new precedent, if it hurts somebody’s feelings, the law must be repealed.
Apparently they think campaign rhetoric from Trump carries more weight than the campaign rhetoric from any other political candidate in history, because no other president has been held to the same standard as President Trump.
In the real world, a legal document like an executive order is binding, while rhetoric on the campaign trail is just that – rhetoric.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland had his own reasons. He determined that Trump’s executive order was “the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” like Watson and Chin, implying he can see something that’s not there.
Even though Chuang doesn’t have security clearance to know if national security is threatened by not enacting the ban, he wrote, “the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban.”
Both rulings could have severe consequences for national security in the U.S.. Claiming that banning people from a majority Muslim country constitutes a “Muslim ban” could open the door to other, more sinister rulings.
With the U.S. involved in fighting ISIS in the Middle East, what is there to stop a judge from ruling that bombing Syria is unconstitutional because the majority of people that are being targeted are Muslim? Some would say that argument is ridiculous, but what is happening now with judges making decisions based solely on their ant-Trump bias would have been called ridiculous two years ago.