Travel Ban Legal and Necessary

Travel Ban Legal and Necessary

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 30, 2017

Lost in the shuffle of the over exaggerated, sack-cloth and ash, doom and gloom hysteria of the newly imposed travel ban by President Donald Trump is that it is perfectly legal and long overdue.

The constitutional rights of not one American citizen are being violated in this logical attempt to make America safe for Americans and those who wish to visit and do no harm while visiting. Not one American’s religious rights are being abridged or denied in the United States.

Make no mistake, this legal and necessary ban is about the safety of the American people and about  national security. This is about putting America first, just as Trump promised during his campaign and reiterated during his inaugural address. No one – no one, has the right to enter the United States just because they want to, just because they are fleeing a despotic regime, just because they need better health care than can be provided in their country of origin, just because they want a superior education or job, or just because they are religiously persecuted.

The ban applies to the same seven countries named by Barack Obama in 2011, 2015, and 2016 as needing further travel restrictions. Those seven countries are Iran, whose government credo is “death to America,” Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. There seemed to be nary a tear shed, nor a protest, nor a lawsuit during the Obama administration, when during three years Obama called for further travel restrictions, yet there has been apoplectic and emotional response from people who clearly don’t comprehend why this has become necessary. In fact, not only necessary now, but protracted unsettled business.

Quite frankly, a complete global immigration moratorium for at least a year should be appropriate in an effort to clean up the crippled system. Extreme vetting is what Trump has called for, and at the very least anyone entering the United States for any reason should be subject to fingerprinting and photographing to be stored in a national data base. This would include, but not be limited to student visas, work visas, travel visas, fiancé visas, and all members of the diplomatic corps.

After all, a global moratorium could not be considered a religious ban as many are defining this one. If this were an all-out Muslim ban why were Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates not included? They are all majority Muslim nations, and many are serious trouble spots. Don’t forget, as if anyone could, Saudi Arabia was the country of origin of the majority of the September 11, 2001 terrorists.

Further, if this travel ban were faith based, why aren’t Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Pakistan on the list? And for that matter, why not Spain – home of the Madrid terror attack on March 11, 2004? Why not the United Kingdom – home of the London terror attack on July 7, 2005? Why not Norway – home of the Oslo and Utoya terror attacks on July 22, 2011? Why not France – home of the Paris, Paris, and Nice terror attacks on January 7, 2015, November 13, 2015, and July 14, 2016? Why not Belgium – home of the Brussels terror attack on March 22, 2016? And why not Germany – home of the Berlin terror attack on December 19, 2016?

George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley said the ACLU is wrong in their assertion that this is about religion. “This is not a Muslim ban,” said the typically left of center Turley.

Senator Elizabeth “Faux-cahontas” Warren (D-MA) led chants of protest calling the travel ban illegal and unconstitutional. While Warren has the right to her own opinion, she does not have the right to her own constitution, said Trump administration senior advisor Stephen Miller.

And for all the hand wringing and selective outrage, here’s a reminder that during his administration, President Jimmy Carter rescinded Iranian visas, while Obama signed a six month suspension of processing Iraqi refugee applications. Does anyone recall Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) getting all worked up at that time?

In fact, Schumer himself, in 2014, called for a cessation to Obama’s refugee program. It is the liberals that are making this political and emotional, instead of the necessity that it is. Schumer called this ban issuance “mean-spirited and un-American.” Isn’t it un-American to not follow the rule of law and protect our American citizens, Senator Schumer?

On Saturday, January 28 of the some 325,000 people who landed at American airports, a mere 109 people were detained, and even then, only temporarily. If detaining a few people and causing a minor inconvenience is the new next step in keeping America safe, we can live with it. Consider the alternative, where people may not live. And for those frenzied protesters comparing the transitory delay to the internment of Japanese-Americans around World War II (1942-46), they should be ashamed of themselves to make such an association. That is an affront to the lives and memories of more than 110,000 Issei and Nisei held for years, not hours.

The rantings of a bunch of Hollywood socialists who don’t know the rule of law, and the demonstrations of a few hundred protesters at various airports should not turn this into a case of emotional blackmail. They have used the temporarily detained as political pawns without concern for the safety and well-being of America. Trump must hold his ground in an effort to reach a positive change in the vetting system as well as a stronger ability to monitor the comings and goings of visitors to the United States.

My youngest daughter commented that we are a nation of immigrants. She is absolutely correct, but we are still a nation of laws, in spite of her quoting from the Emma Lazarus (1849-87) sonnet The New Colossus (1883). “…Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…”

I reminded her of the importance of the next four words “…yearning to breathe free…” Do terrorists adhere to those four words, I asked her? No; not so much. They seek to impose chaos, anarchy, and Sharia Law. We welcome legal immigrants into the United States, and while many terrorists have emerged from the muck and mire illegally, far too many have gained access to our shores legally, and thus the importance of the ban.

There is no constitutional right for the world’s population, over seven billion strong, to enter the United States, either legally or illegally. It is a privilege. The first responsibility of the government is to protect its citizenry and borders. No court can confer permission of entrance upon non-US citizens.

Part of the oath of office calls for the president to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” With this legal and necessary ban, President Trump is doing just that. Just as he promised.

 Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator in Westfield, IN.