Do you support President Trump's travel ban?
via AP

Do you support President Trump's travel ban?

#TrumpWrongOnTerror
#TrumpRightOnTerror
Join the conversation and vote below

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the Muslim travel ban case Trump v. Hawaii. Critics argue the travel ban is "unconstitutional," "unnecessary" and "un-American." But The White House insists the travel ban is meant to protect us from foreign terrorists trying to enter the country. Opponents maintain a religious test is wrong and could actually make us less safe. What do you think? ✈️

THE VOTES ARE IN!
#TrumpWrongOnTerror
66%
#TrumpRightOnTerror
34%

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Trump v. Hawaii, which will decide the fate of President Trump's controversial travel ban. The third version of the travel ban, which Trump criticized as "watered-down," includes a ban on travelers from a number of Muslim-majority countries, North Korea and Venezuela.

ACLU Legal Director David Cole has called on the Supreme Court to check "the president’s constitutional excesses" and argues "the constitutional case against the travel ban is overwhelmingly strong."

Just as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” it also forbids the government from singling out for disfavor or condemnation any particular religion. This prohibition is absolute; never in the court’s history has it found an example of justifiable religious condemnation. Yet the travel ban is, in Trump’s own words, a ban on Muslims.

Neal Katyal, the lawyer arguing against the ban in the Supreme Court, said of the ban: "It's unconstitutional. It's unnecessary. And most of all, it's un-American." Katyal also says immigration is exclusively the business of Congress, not the president, maintaining "These decisions are too important to be left to the decision-making of one man."

Katyal argued that no provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act gives the president the power to override the immigration act's ban on discrimination based on nationality. His brief quotes the late Justice Antonin Scalia in addressing which branch of government can do what.

But critics argue the president is well within his power to weigh in on immigration law as a matter of national security. As David French explains in the National Review:

While federal immigration law grants the president sweeping power to bar “any class of aliens” if the president finds that its members’ entry is “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” immigration law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of “nationality” in the “issuance of an immigrant visa.”

Yes, a religious test is unconstitutional, but the revised travel ban in question is specifically about the instability of countries, not the religion of its citizens. North Korea and Venezuela aren't Muslim-majority countries, but they are included in the travel ban.

The text of the travel ban makes clear that it is being implemented not because of the nationality of the immigrants, but because of the actions of their governments or the instability of their countries. By its own terms, the travel ban describes the specific deficiencies of the nations at issue, thus providing a clear path for a remedy.

Allowing immigrants from dangerous countries to pour into the U.S. would threaten our national security, plain and simple. President Trump is acting well within his power as president by taking steps to strengthen federal immigration law and keep Americans safe.

Share

More from The Tylt

Does Susan Sarandon need to have a seat?
Does Susan Sarandon need to have a seat?
Politics
Is it inhumane to leave prison inmates in the path of a deadly hurricane?
Is it inhumane to leave prison inmates in the path of a deadly hurricane?
Politics
Should felons be allowed to vote?
Should felons be allowed to vote?
Politics