By now, you’re aware that opponents of Trump’s Travel Ban managed to find a federal judge who was willing to place a temporary restraining order to prevent it from taking effect today.   As you know, my opinion is that it’s better for everyone if we just get it out of the way, but nobody cares.

Hilariously, this has led to supporters of the Travel Ban taking to Twitter and trending #BoycottHawaii.  Really, nobody should be threatening to “boycott Hawaii” over this topic.  The people in that state have absolutely no impact on what an activist judge does.

In fact, the lack of judicial accountability is part of the problem.  I don’t know what anyone there is supposed to do.  Throw pineapples at the judge’s house?

An explanation of the judge’s flawed reasoning in applying this is over at The Federalist. I haven’t reviewed the ruling for myself just yet, but I suspect that Mollie Hemingway’s observations are correct, particularly with regard to the judge’s likely interpretation of Trump’s motive as the reason that the Travel Ban is harmful.

For this, Trump has nobody to blame but himself.  Inflammatory statements might make for more exuberant rallies and entertaining news show interviews, but sooner or later, he will always find that he’ll have to defend them in front of responsible people who have to make decisions over the impact of his policies.

I disagree with this ruling, but it’s very much a rake Trump left sitting out for himself to step on months ago.

 

71 comments

  1. I think a world with a travel ban is a sad state of affairs.

    That said, did judge Watson just make a legal decision that if you say something he consider’s bigoted on TV that it is secretly the driving force behind your policy decision making abilities?

    I think he did.

  2. Well, sure it’s sad but presidents are going to place travel bans against countries at various times for various reasons. To say that a president cannot levy a travel ban against a state sponsor of terrorism or one that has an active insurgency underway is an overreach.

    But I hope Trump now understands why he can’t keep running his mouth without consequences. Federal judges can’t be moved with a few angry tweets. It works on the media, congressmen, and the like, but not people who don’t need ratings or votes.

  3. It’s unbelievable to me that a President’s actual legal powers can differ from one President to the next based on the statements (free speech!) of the individual occupying the office, made in his capacity as a private citizen prior to taking office. Based on the legal logic, Barack Obama could have issued this EO with no problem, but the exact same EO issued by Trump is unconstitutional. I cannot imagine this would even be contemplated by the framers.

  4. You’d have to boycott Maryland, too. I am waiting for the right to bring up how the judges and procesutors aren’t real Americans because of their ancestry.
    I mean, I am sure it’s there already, but I don’t read 4chan.
    Boycotting Hawaii is a lot like boycotting Hamilton. How many of the boycotters were ever going to go? Much like my personal boycott of Trump’s DC hotel – I was never going to spend that money 🙂

  5. I think the point is that the President has the legal power to issue a ban to protect Americans, but he doesn’t have the power to issue a ban to target a specific religion.
    His past statements and Rudi’s little story in particular prove that the intent of the ban is not the former.
    I was on board with warlock Thrill’s plan to have the let the ban ride to convince your base that legal immigrants aren’t out to kill them, so I am not out there in my hijab celebrating these decisions.
    But Trump does need to learn to have an inner monologue, so this is not all bad.

  6. I read an interesting statistic – Hawaii hasn’t taken in a single refugee from Syria since the situation started. The Governor is on record as saying they would take some in, but haven’t…How about we send them all there?

  7. I think the point is that the President has the legal power to issue a ban to protect Americans, but he doesn’t have the power to issue a ban to target a specific religion.

    This is true, but the EO does not do so. It’s a terrible rabbit hole to look beyond that to personal statements with debatable relevance and ambiguity to suss out a motive and use that instead of the plain language of the order.

  8. There were some awesome memes when the right was boycotting Nordstrom’s over the Ivanka dropping.
    I mean, they were horrible in perpetuating the stereotypes that divide this great country. But hilarious.

  9. Using this logic, then every EO that Obama ever signed regarding gun control should have been frozen by the courts because Obama was on record for disparaging gun owners (“cling to their guns…” etc.).

  10. Gun ownership is not a legally recognized religion. Yet.
    Technically, gun owners are not a protected class.

  11. Foreigners living in other countries aren’t a protected class either. Nor does the Constitution apply to them. At least it didn’t, until the 9th Circuit said so with the last travel ban.

    This probably won’t get resolved until Gorsuch is confirmed.

  12. I am sure Syrian refugees will be happy to take you up on your offer of a ticket to Hawaii. Shall I get you some names directly from my neighbourhood (it snowed again here) or do you want to set up some sort of a lottery?
    The plaintiff in the Hawaii case is an Egyptian/Syrian family.
    I am pretty sure the main limiting factor in getting refugees to Hawaii is the same as that in getting me to Hawaii – the cost of the flight.

  13. It’s also not about disparaging Muslims, it’s about being on record as wanting to ban them from entering the country. And asking Rudi how to get around the fact that that’s illegal.

  14. I would argue that asking Rudi how to institute a Muslim ban without using the word is relevant. Rudi told that story on TV, the other statement was part of his official presidential platform.
    Why is it that Podesta’s emails are fair game since he used to be a public servant, but Trump’s official campaign platform is a personal statement made by a private citizen?

  15. The plaintiffs are Muslims living the the US. Their right to see their family is in question in the Hawaii case.

  16. Speaking of ‘Everybody Wins,’ have I mentioned that my favourite solution for solving jihadism is a mass hooker airlift to the Middle East?

  17. I’m trying to remember who it was. Might have been Michael Savage. Whoever it was, he said we needed to airdrop pornography and liquor on them to get them to loosen up or something.

    Not a bad idea, but there are plenty of whores, drinks, and skin mags in South Chicago and it doesn’t make it any more peaceful.

  18. I want to say that their family hasn’t visited in over a decade. This is one I think should have been hard to prove standing, if it’s the case.

    I’m swamped in some work I need to get back to, but should have time to read into this later. I need to get the facts right.

  19. Congress shall pass no law…..

    Federal judges, on the other hand are free to add articles of faith like “the golden rule” into sappy activist decisions with impunity.

  20. Lodestar was being tried in the court of public opinion and trump’s executive order is being restrained due to what a federal judge “thinks trump thinks.”

    These are not the same things.

  21. But there is no religious preference in this ban (there was in the previous one). A blanket Muslim Ban is out of the question, but the president is empowered by Congress to stop immigration from countries with majority-Muslim countries if there are reasons for doing so.

    The judge is just of the opinion that Trump’s views on Muslims are the whole reason for the ban. That’s wrong and has nothing to do with the legal substance of the ban, though it admittedly is Trump’s fault for poisoning that well.

  22. So really what this all means is instead of China entering into an arms race to invade the United States they should define communism as s religion and a judge would be compelled to allow anyone in a mao shirt quarter.

  23. Imagine if this decision was in 1945. You wouldn’t be able to stop German immigration in the event of a war if the oresident remarked that he didn’t trust lutherans.

  24. I think you’d get the exact number of Chinese entering as you do now. There’s no ban on communists.

  25. Dan Savage? Chicago is a lot less prone to attacking other countries, beheadings, mass graves. I would take Chicago over Mosul any day.

  26. You do see that calling this a “Muslim ban” is asinine, right? There are somewhere near a billion Muslims in the world that don’t live in those six countries, so calls in the media and the left against this because of Muslims or religion is willfully disingenuous.

  27. I am pretty sure the main limiting factor in getting refugees to Hawaii is the same as that in getting me to Hawaii – the cost of the flight.

    Actually, the main limiting factor is that the state has not put in writing that they will accept Syrian refugees, despite the sentiment that they would do so.

    Regarding cost…if you are flying someone almost 12,000 miles from Syria to the US at a cost of somewhere around $60,000 already (for some reason), that extra 2,400 miles is not what is breaking the bank. That’s silly.

  28. The point I’m making is that due to this legal precedent if a chinaman walks into a gay bar with a rifle and kills as many gays as he possibly can because communists hate gays we’d be powerless to prevent it from happening again if china simply called communism a religion.

    It’s a ridiculous legal decision to neuter the president’s ability to make national security decisions because our constitution protects non-citizens religious freedoms.

    Our constitution says we can’t establish a law that determines a faith. It does NOT say we can’t protect ourselves from one that has openly declared itself hostile to our nation.

    There’s a distinction here. Trump is not directing muslims to be barred from entry permanently. He’s called for an immediate but temporary halt on immigration from seven countries because those countries can’t tell us with any certainty who in the fuck they’re actually sending here.

  29. I visited Maui in 2014 and was both told and saw with my own eyes that the largest immigrant population there is….. Mexicans! They work the tourism industry.

    There’s so many that Hawaii offers direct flights to Mexico on most airlines.

    As for Syrian refugees I’d be all for it. It would be a spectacular bit of schadenfreude to see muslims desecrate luaus, protest leis and school events that celebrate Hawaiian culture because that is, after all, a faith.

  30. The man who walked into the gay bar in question was a natural born US citizen, so yeah, there’s not much we can do in that case.
    Because, otherwise, the next time a white Christian male walks into a black church or a movie theater and shoots it up, what do we do, ban all men? All white Christian men?

  31. I am not calling it a Muslim ban. Trump did.
    This is the Giuliani quote: “I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he 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.’”
    I am aware that there are a lot of other Muslims in the world. There are also a ton of other countries with with bad record keeping, which are not on the list.
    I am further aware that there have been zero lives lost on US soil to terrorists from any of the 6-7 countries affected by either ban. Countries that do send us killers, like Pakistan and Saudi are not on the list, so I don’t buy the security argument.
    I am willing to go with it for the sake of window dressing so that your base feels safer and stops targeting all Muslims, but I am also aware that the whole thing is just one long recruitment video for ISIS, feeding right into their narrative that the West is at war with Islam.

  32. I was asking your opinion on the term “Muslim ban” in regards to these two specific EO’s. I never claimed, nor intended to claim you thought it was a “Muslim ban”.

    I’m pretty sure Trump called for A Muslim ban as part of a hyperbolic statement during a presidential election (Just like I don’t honestly think Hillary Clinton considers me as one of the enemies she is most proud of because I was a Republican). The left and the media conflated that statement with his proposed immigration ban, to my knowledge, Trump never did.

  33. I agree with Thrill that this ban is window dressing for the sake of the base. I believe that the people it’s meant to placate actually do think of it as a Muslim ban. won’t pretend to know what Trump himself thinks this thing is. I am not sure he’s read it.
    I agree that it does not ban of all Muslims from entering the US. I am not sure if the far-right or the jihadists make that distinction.
    I guess the best I can come up with is it’s a ‘dog whistle Muslim ban.’ Does that work?

  34. The $60,000 is not the cost of the flight. That’s the whole resettlement, housing, etc. And that number is in dispute.
    I don’t know the procedures are for states to accept refugees. Do you have a link at hand that proves that they have to put something in writing? I remember some states trying to get out of it by declaring that they would refuse to take refugees, it seems like all they would have had to do is not put whatever it is in writing?

  35. Why would they desecrate luaus? I live in Dearborn and I’ve not seen one one Muslim desecrate a BBQ joint, any school event or a menorah or a Xmas tree. A crazy man tried to come here and burn a Koran, but otherwise, it’s pretty chill.

  36. Why would they desecrate luaus?

    You think they need a reason beyond half-naked women *gasp* dancing??

    OK

    In ancient Hawaii, men and woman ate their meals apart. Commoners and women of all ranks were also forbidden by the ancient Hawaiian religion to eat certain delicacies. This all changed in 1819, when King Kamehameha II abolished the traditional religious practices. A feast where the King ate with women was the symbolic act which ended the Hawaiian religious tabus, and the luau was born.

    Close enough to religion for a nutbag with a bomb.

  37. Dearborn is full of strip clubs. Again, no one is ‘desecrating’ them beyond the usual.
    I assumed dredd meant the pork.
    Why do you think the Muslims are running around destroying other religions in their adoptive countries? Have you ever met a Muslim?

  38. I don’t know what the formal process is, but back in 2015 the Governor is on record as saying they should take in refugees (he took a lot of local flack for that), but to this day, Hawaii has taken in exactly zero from any middle east country. So saying that, but not doing it makes me think of “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan”. They have a huge problem with homeless already due to the stupidly high cost of living, so out of the public spotlight, I’m sure politicians on the island don’t want to exacerbate that problem further.

  39. Why do you think the Muslims are running around destroying other religions in their adoptive countries?

    No reason.

    Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria continue their war on the region’s cultural heritage, attacking archaeological sites with bulldozers and explosives.

    The so-called Islamic State (ISIS) released a video that shocked the world last month by showing the fiery destruction of the Temple of Baalshamin, one of the best-preserved ruins at the Syrian site of Palmyra. Last weekend, explosions were reported at another Palmyra temple, dedicated to the ancient god Baal; a United Nation agency says satellite images show that larger temple has largely been destroyed.

  40. My understanding is that the resettlement past the point of entry is largely handled by NGOs and sponsors. They ask you where you want to go, if you have family or friends you want to be close to, then try to get you there.
    That’s how you get large enclaves like the Muslims where I live, the Jews in NYC, the Asians in California.
    Most of the ‘Governor declares that he welcomes refugees’ is just politics for local consumption. The States can’t deport someone into a neighboring state once they are in the country legally.
    If no Syrians are asking to be flown to Hawaii, which makes sense, then there are no Syrian refugees in Hawaii. Given the cost of living you mentioned and the logistics of getting there and back, why would they want to go? There is a reason that European immigrants end up on the East coast and Asians on the West coast – you always hope to at least visit the old country. Barring that, you want to be in a place that has people like you and stores that sell food you like.

  41. That’s why I said ‘adoptive country.’ The people coming here as refugees are trying to get away from those assholes. If they agreed with it, they would have stayed there.

  42. Most are, and they are in a terrible situation. Some aren’t.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/01/feds-blame-lapse-vetting-admitting-syrian-refugees-terrorist-ties-u-s/

    Dozens of Syrian refugees already living in the Unites States may have ties to terrorism and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is downplaying it, claiming federal agents missed “possible derogatory information” about the immigrants due to “a lapse in vetting.” Among those who slipped through the cracks is a man who failed a polygraph test after applying to work at a U.S. military installation and another who communicated with an Islamic State leader.

    And in Europe.

    German police have arrested three Syrian men suspected of being deployed by Isis to carry out new terror attacks in Europe.

    Prosecutors said the three suspects were dispatched to Germany last year “either to carry out a mission that they had been informed about or to wait for further instructions”.

    And this.

    The Islamic State has planned to infect refugee flows to the West with mass killers, and it has had some violent successes.

    The CIA said last year that the terrorist group’s official strategy is to hide its operatives among refugees entering Europe and the United States via human flows out of the Middle East and North Africa.

    The Islamic State, also known as ISIL and ISIS, has inspired followers to commit atrocities in San Bernardino, California; Orlando, Florida; and the Fort Lauderdale airport in Florida. Scores of U.S. residents have been charged with or suspected of providing material support to the Islamic State. Some have left the U.S. to commit war crimes in Syria and Iraq.

    As President Trump places a 120-day ban on immigration from what he considers high-risk Muslim-majority countries, the history of the mass migration shows that some took part in the Nov. 13, 2015, massacre in Paris — two posed as refugees from Syria — and the Christmastime truck carnage in Berlin.

    Two of the airport and Metro attacks in Brussels last year had fought in Syria and gained entry back into Belgium.

    The German press has reported refugee knife and ax attacks on innocents.

    Just the tip of the iceberg. One of these getting into the country is too much IMO, and the government, as mandated by the Constitution, should do everything it can to protect US Citizens from them. If that means keeping them out, so be it.

  43. That’s where we disagree.
    There is a difference between the US ans Europe, because they can’t just walk over here, so all of our refugees are vetted.
    If you consider the statistical probability of being killed by a refugee terrorist from one of these countries (it’s never happened here in the US) and weigh it against the humanitarian need of the actual people, there is no way to make the case that we don’t take a single one.
    But most importantly, the San Bernardino, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale attacks, the only ones you mention which occurred on US soil, were perpetuated by native born US citizens (and the wife of one of them, who was not a refugee nor was she from one of the countries on the list, so she would not have been stopped by this ban.)
    The only thing this ban accomplishes is to inspire more people like the 3 guys above to follow ISIS because it confirms their narrative that there is a holy war between Islam and the West and that, even being born here, they will never belong and guys like you will always fear them and see them as ‘the other.’

  44. I had the same thought today. “Now I need to boycott McDonalds! What idiots!” Then I remembered that I voluntarily stopped eating their “food” several years ago for the sake of my taste-buds and health.

  45. There is a difference between the US ans Europe, because they can’t just walk over here, so all of our refugees are vetted.

    Read the first link.

    But most importantly, the San Bernardino, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale attacks, the only ones you mention which occurred on US soil, were perpetuated by native born US citizens

    I never claimed otherwise.

  46. If that white Christian male was part of a death cult that swore an alliwgence to destroy America I’d say it was fair game. Seriously? Even Europeans have started deporting naturalized radical clerics: is there any point you might be able to acknowledge not all muslims fit neatly into your “my Muslim neighbors in Dearborn” meme?

  47. SOME of those people are trying to run away from those countries. Some are coming because they mean us harm and recognize the ridiculously low standard of vetting needed to simply walk into a western nation.

    It’s intellectually lazy to say “we should help refugees” and then call the people who do not support a blanket open arm policy of refuge callous. No one can oppose that. The challenge before the president and really Western Europe is “how can we discern who is my neighbor in Dearborn and who is a bad hombre jihadist?”

    When you have a solution that resolves that riddle let us all know because the only successful solution I’ve heard so far is the process of closing the flood gates and vetting the president is actually proposing.

  48. Actually the mastermind behind the San bernadino terror attack was not the American born Pakistani but his Pakistani Muslim immigrant wife who was instrumental in radicalize had her husband. She herself was given a free pass into this nation despite being quite openly jihadist because, well, she was never really vetted.

    Sad!

  49. Are you proposing that we vet the spouses of American citizens and stop them from coming in? Because that’s a different conversation.She did not come as a refugee.
    I am not sure what an ‘American born Pakistani’ is. Doesn’t being American born make you an American?

  50. I did read the first link. It says ‘boo! there might be bad people here!’ There is no proof.
    Since we are debating a ban on refugees, pointing to attacks by US citizens does not prove your point that refugees are dangerous. It proves my point that stunts like this radicalize people who are already here.

  51. There are no flood gates.We are vetting now. It takes years to get in. We take a ridiculously low number of people compared to other Western nations. The president is not actually proposing anything to improve the vetting. He’s just gonna look at it.
    And literally no one is stopping him from looking at it now. He could have been looking at it from day one. There is no need to stop people with existing visas (as the first EO did) or stop new visas (as the second EO does) while the procedures are re-worked, unless there is a clear provable threat or flaw in the procedures. Obama stopped issuing visas to Iraqis after the Bowling Green non-massacre, re-worked the procedures and no one took him to court.

    I would call Zurvan’s “One of these getting into the country is too much IMO, and the government, as mandated by the Constitution, should do everything it can to protect US Citizens from them. If that means keeping them out, so be it” opposing helping refugees. Callous was your term.

  52. Actually it says there’s evidence that refugees made it into the country without going through the vetting process.

    It proves my point that stunts like this radicalize people who are already here.

    Trying to prevent terrorists from coming here radicalizes people who are already here? Can’t say I agree with that one. It’s kinda like saying you can’t prevent bob from stealing your car because it might piss off your sister who’s dating him. But for the sake of argument, let’s say it does. What do you propose we do? Wait until the next 9/11?

    Going back to your “they can’t walk here”, no, not as refugees, but as illegal aliens, thousands have already come here from the middle east across the southern border.

  53. I also remember a good one on the Boy Named Sue thread: “My mother was a woman…”

    It took every measure of self-control I had to let it go.

  54. There is no need to stop people with existing visas (as the first EO did)

    Complete and total bonehead move. This is the number 1 thing I disagree with thus far in Trump’s Presidency.

  55. I am willing to postulate that some of “my neighbors” are bad hombres that mean us harm.
    Don’t mistake my love for hummus for some sort of pro-Islam bias. As a Jew, I would say I have more cause to fear the bad hombres. I refer you to my earlier comments about Rasmieh Odeh and why I passed on the lady strike. I am only using the meme to show that just letting them in does no automatically lead to a ban on pork and naked ladies.

    You seem to confuse natural born with naturalized, though.
    I am totally cool with vetting and deporting non-citizens, or even naturalized citizens, with sufficient proof.
    But what do you propose we do with actual US born citizens?

    My concern is that I see the slippery slope to another Japanese internment in comments which make no differentiation between foreigners and US citizens, lumping them, instead, by national origin. When you call someone an “American-born Pakistani,” that’s my issue. How many generations have to be born here to cleanse the stigma is washed off?

    Btw, some militias qualify as ‘a death cult that swore an allegiance to destroy America.’ We still can’t just deport them.

  56. Actually it says that there is a possibility that that two suspicious refugees made it into the country despite being vetted (not without vetting.) That’s the difference between saying “I got pregnant because we didn’t use a condom” and “I got pregnant because the condom had a microscopic hole.”

    I have no heard of any Muslims sneaking in over the Southern border. Source?

    My analogy for radicalization is this: you have just stopped Bob from coming into your party because he is Irish (and therefore might be an alcoholic who beats women.) Patrick, your “American-born Irish” friend is already at the party and now he wonders if you think that he is an alcoholic who beats women and your friendship is a lie. Patrick proceeds to get drunk…

  57. I have no heard of any Muslims sneaking in over the Southern border. Source?

    There have been numerous articles over the years on it. Here’s one.

    A smuggling network has managed to sneak illegal immigrants from Middle Eastern terrorism hotbeds straight to the doorstep of the U.S., including helping one Afghan who authorities say was part of an attack plot in North America.

    Immigration officials have identified at least a dozen Middle Eastern men smuggled into the Western Hemisphere by a Brazilian-based network that connected them with Mexicans who guided them to the U.S. border, according to internal government documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

    Those smuggled included Palestinians, Pakistanis and the Afghan man who Homeland Security officials said had family ties to the Taliban and was “involved in a plot to conduct an attack in the U.S. and/or Canada.” He is in custody, but The Times is withholding his name at the request of law enforcement to protect investigations.

    Another

    A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it’s costing the state tens of millions of dollars.

    In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says.

    Patrick needs a wife.

  58. Ok, So some have gotten in illegally over the border. A. I don’t see thousands in there, but fine. B. the refugee ban is not going to stop this, it will increase the demand, you see that, right?

    Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

  59. It is simply not a Muslim ban.

    1 Afaganistan 18M 99%
    2 Albania 2.3M 75%
    3 Algeria 22M 98%
    4 Bahrain .220M 99%
    5 Bangladesh 100M 85%
    6 Cameroon 6.2M 55%
    7 Central African Republic 2M 55%
    8 Chad 4M 85%
    9 Dahomey 3M 60%
    10 Egypt 51M 93%
    11 Ethiopia 27M 65%
    12 Gambia .4M 85%
    13 Guinea 4.3M 95%
    14 Guinea-Bissau .81M 70%
    15 Indonesia 161M 95%
    16 Iran 48M 98%
    17 Iraq 14.5M 95%
    18 Ivory Coast 5M 55%
    19 Jordan 3M 95%
    20 Kuwait 1M 98%
    21 Lebanon 3M 57%
    22 Libya 3M 100%
    23 Malaysia 14.5M 52%
    24 Maldive Islands 12M 100%
    25 Mali 6M 90%
    26 Mauritania 2M 100%
    27 Morocco 24M 99%
    28 Niger 4.5M 91%
    29 Nigeria 100M 75%
    30 Oman .75M 100%
    31 Pakistan 90M 97%
    32 Qatar .18M 100%
    33 Saudi Arabia 10.5M 100
    34 Senegal 7M 95%
    35 Sierra Leone 3M 65%
    36 Somalia 5M 100%
    37 South Yemen 1.5M 95%
    38 Sudan 22M 85%
    39 Syria 11M 87%
    40 Tanzania 15M 65%
    41 Togo 2.1M 55%
    42 Tunisia 7M 95%
    43 Turkey 66M 99%
    44 U.A.E .32M 100%
    45 Upper Volta 6M 56%
    46 North Yemen 6M 99%

    46 Muslim majority nations. only 7 have had a restriction imposed on them… Hardly a Muslim ban….

    And if we were to use the precedent established by this judge, and apply it to Obama, and take into account the various things he has said over his public life, well im sure there are a few that could be blocked overturned or what ever pretty quickly.
    This is a bad decision, full stop.
    No matter how shitty a person you might think Obama.. opss Trump is, He is president, and by law can restrict immigration from anywhere outside the US.
    The United States has restricted immigration before, it has been selective before.

  60. If the fedgov is funding this, then why would cost matter?i mean how dare you put a cost on the safety of these people…….

  61. oh hey…. question…… Could this judges ruling,the reasoning behind it , be used to prevent Trumps wall plan?

  62. I’m going to say no. However, given that this judge decided that Trump’s EO was a Muslim Ban and that was that, I’m going to say that any federal judge could prevent the wall with something equally farcical.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: