On March 6, Donald Trump signed a new executive order to ban Muslims, which was planned to take effect today (March 16). It’s really the same travel ban with some minor changes:
1) Iraq is not in the list that consists of the 6 other countries. Of course Iraq has been wonderfully democratic ever since that horrible dictator Saddam Hussein was removed.
2) Green card holders aren’t blocked, foreigners with a legal status to work and live in the USA.
3) People that already have valid visas aren’t blocked.
If the first blocking of the travel ban of the Donald Trump administration was rightfully done (remember that Trump didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court), then this new travel ban – of people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - doesn’t stand a chance.
Washington State, joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Oregon, say the first restraining order should apply to the heart of the new travel ban. They’ve asked federal district Judge James Robart from Seattle to let the temporary restraining order against Trump’s January 27th ban also applies to this new version. Trump’s team didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the blocking of the first Muslim ban travel by Judge Robart.
They use the following legal argument “When a court enjoins a defendant from implementing policies, the defendant cannot evade that injunction simply by reissuing the same basic policies in a new form”.
Robart schedule a hearing yesterday (March 15).
These same states also argue that the ban will hurt their economies by limiting students and professors at universities, reducing tourism and curbing employment.
Also 2 other states have started their own lawsuits against the new travel ban in 2 federal courts — Maryland and Hawaii. Both of these lawsuits complain that the ban contravenes the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and discriminates against Muslims in violation of the equal-protection clause and the First Amendment rule against establishing religion: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../03/back-court
The 9th Circuit on Wednesday refused to reinstate the original ban.
Two Federal judges - in Hawaii and Maryland – have blocked the travel ban before taking effect. They used Trump's own words as evidence that it discriminates against Muslims.
While the Hawaii order only halts the ban temporarily, Chuang's ruling in Maryland took the form of a preliminary injunction, which will remain in effect indefinitely as the case is litigated.
Chuang did not block the entire executive order, because a temporary ban on refugees isn’t necessarily discriminatory. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case also wanted to stop a portion of the order that would reduce the number of refugees allowed to enter the country this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000.
The Trump administration argued that the ban was intended to protect the United States from terrorism. President Trump’s reaction to the blocking of his second travel ban was:
"This ruling makes us look weak … We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear" - http://www.dailynews.com/government-...discriminatory
If I understand correctly the number of refugees allowed to enter the USA has been lawfully reduced this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000. 110,000 is already much lower than the relative amount of immigrants coming to my home country the Netherlands…
I don’t believe for a second that Donald Trump really tries to ban Muslims from entering the USA; I believe that this is a charade to divert the attention from what is really going on, while marking time for the planned false flag attack at which time the legal system will get the blame for jeopardising the national security of the USA.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us