As the United States Supreme Court opens what may be one its most significant sessions in recent years, one controversial matter will not come before it: the contentious battle over the President’s prior travel ban temporary executive order (EO) which has expired. The Wall Street Journal notes that the “new travel ban scrambled a legal fight two weeks before a major Supreme Court argument…”
The Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) Acting Secretary Elaine Duke believes that the new measure “will protect Americans and allow DHS to better keep terrorists and criminals from entering our country. The restrictions announced are tough and tailored, and they send a message to foreign governments that they must work with us to enhance security.”
It appears that the new version answers the objections, many based on rather shaky legal grounds, that were levied against the original EO, and argued in the hyper-politicized 9th Circuit. The role of that judicial branch in this matter remains questionable. The law clearly provides the President with the authority to govern the subject matter, as noted by Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Unsubstantiated claims of bias against Muslims will be hard to argue in the new EO, since non-Muslim nations such as Venezuela and North Korea are on the affected list, which also includes Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen and Chad. The restrictions vary from nation to nation. In 2016, according to the State Dept., 37,131visas were issued to citizens from Iran, 18,201 from Yemen, 11,729 from Syria, 2,690 from Libya, 2,248 from Somalia, 1,395 from Chad, and 109 from North Korea.
According to the White House, “The Administration remains focused on raising the baseline for national security standards.” The new EO requires the Administration to “determine what minimum information is needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for an immigration benefit and determine that the individual is not a security or public safety threat. The previous screening/vetting status quo for border and immigration security must be improved for individuals from certain countries, if the United States is to adequately counter terrorism and transnational crime threats against its people.”
However, one has purchase generic levitra deeprootsmag.org to be extra insightful and careful when buying products through online pharmacies. On the other hand, synthetic prescription for cialis medicines produce instant relief but they come with side effects. The axles may have many types of breaks like gas, mechanical and also electrical breaks. sildenafil professional You can also massage the male organ using purchase generic viagra 8 to 10 drops of this herbal oil daily two to three times. The most salient question, of course, concerns the purpose of the objections to the White House effort to tighten entry into the U.S., other than the usual political gamesmanship. The need for tighter restrictions is clear, and can be seen in various terror attacks both in the U.S. and Europe.
While the U.S. has, under the current Administration, not yet endured the number or severity of the attacks that had taken place previously, Europe has been subjected to an almost regular and ongoing round of assaults. The State Department outlined the challenge:
“Terrorist attacks on public spaces and other soft targets – sometimes using unsophisticated means and methods – resulted in mass casualties. The terrorist attack in Nice on July 14, claimed by ISIS, epitomized this phenomenon. The attacker, a Tunisian national residing permanently in France, drove a 19-ton cargo truck through crowds gathered on a seaside promenade to celebrate Bastille Day, France’s national holiday, killing 86 and injuring hundreds before police shot and killed him. In Germany, an ISIS-claimed truck attack killed 12 in a crowded Christmas market in Berlin on December 19, 2016. Other notable terrorist attacks on soft targets during the year included AQIM attacks on a restaurant and hotel in Ouagadougou on January 15; a June 28 attack on the main airport in Istanbul, attributed to ISIS; and a July 23 attack on a peaceful protest in Kabul, carried out by the ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan. The same ISIS affiliate also claimed responsibility for multiple attacks in Pakistan, including a November 12 bomb blast at the Shah Noorani Shrine in Baluchistan province, Pakistan, which killed more than 50 and wounded more than 100 people. Finally, attacks using bladed weapons such as knives and machetes, which ISIS propaganda has promoted, remained a feature of the terrorism threat in 2016. Knife attacks in Israel and the West Bank by Palestinian lone offenders continued a trend begun there in 2015.”
However, some of the same opponents to the White House’s first ban have lined up against the current version. In a recent release, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero reasserted the argument that the EO was anti-Muslim: “Six of President Trump’s targeted countries are Muslim. The fact that Trump has added North Korea — with few visitors to the U.S. — and a few government officials from Venezuela doesn’t obfuscate the real fact that the administration’s order is still a Muslim ban. President Trump’s original sin of targeting Muslims cannot be cured by throwing other countries onto his enemies list.”
The lack of either legal or logical merit to the claims of those opposing the EO is disturbing. Clearly, the extraordinary waves of recent terrorist attacks in Europe, as well as the unprecedented assaults in the United States, warrant protective actions. Restrictions against the nations they largely derive from are neither inappropriate nor illogical.