The first week of Mr Trump has been impressive. His campaign promises were generally considered fanciful and his supporters weren’t likely to take him literally, but it turns out they should have—everyone should have.
Even Pence, who considered a ban unconstitutional, needed a complete turn around to stomach the latest orders that trapped people at airports and sparked massive protests. Then again, when you allow Christians through and call out specific countries with little recent evidence of terrorism, you poke holes in the rationale. We still need rationale for things like this, right?
Adding insult to ignorance, the ban is even more transparent in that…
President Trump omitted from his ban a number of other predominantly Muslim nations where his company has done business. This adds further illegitimacy to one of the most arbitrary executive actions in our recent history, and raises significant constitutional questions.
… and if this is really about “security” as stated, you’d think he’d include countries with actual ties to recent terrorism…
But these three countries have exported terror to the United States in the past. They accounted for 18 of the 19 terrorists who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attack on American soil (an attack which was directed by another Saudi, Osama Bin Laden, with the assistance of an Egyptian, Ayman al-Zawahri).
… but that would be an assumption for a bygone era, it seems.
It appears that immigrants from countries that can afford to do business with the Trump organization are free to come and go from the United States. Immigrants from countries that cannot afford such transactions may very well be detained at the airport and sent home, where some may perish.
Maybe next time a candidate makes fantastic claims that would call into question most interpretations of our constitution, we shouldn’t dismiss them so quickly as empty promises. Maybe.