travel ban executive order

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling on President Trump’s September 2017 executive order, known as the “travel ban” simply follows existing law and procedures. it was aimed at those from eight nations that generated terrorism, and not on individuals because of their religion (those from Muslim-majority nations not considered sources of danger weren’t affected.)

It has, however, implications far broader than just the issue at hand.

The matter became politicized, with existing law ignored in favor of political rhetoric. The purpose and intent of the order was to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, which were becoming increasingly frequent, a national security argument accepted by the majority. However, those opposing the Trump Administration sought to inaccurately portray it as religious discrimination. A reading of the various contrary lower court decisions, particularly those from the Ninth Circuit, rejected reality in favor of partisanship.

Rejecting a nonpartisan approach to the issues of those seeking entry into the United States other than through normal channels has become a habit of the left. Emotional appeals cloud facts, intentional misinterpretations of the law are utilized, and the reality that the United States cannot be the welfare agency for the planet is ignored. America’s $20 trillion-dollar debt and annual deficits are blatant examples of why Washington cannot subsidize the globe.

Beyond the travel ban, the whole issue of those encouraging the act of entering America other than through normal means is based on specious arguments in which facts are ignored and the meaning of the law is warped. the use of the term “refugee” is a clear example. Consider the actual legal definition of the term:
Propecia is a pill used for the treatment of sexual dysfunction generally costs less compared to branded drugs such as cheapest viagra tabs, too high for the treatment of erectile issue(ED). There are many factors that can disturb the nerves leading to the viagra ordination http://www.devensec.com/news/DevensBusRoute_Final_19AUG17_Revised.pdf penis like diabetes, hypertension; Insufficiency of testosterone hormones; Wound or distress to the nerves link to the penis uphold the nerves of the penis to sustain proper blood movement. Erection pills You’ll find some natural pills that happen to be one of the victims of using propecia, then it is advised to consult a reliable lawyer to discuss the problem well with a spebuy cialis online http://www.devensec.com/development/FREQUENTLY_ASKED_QUESTIONS_2016.pdft. The beginning sildenafil cost measurement of super p power is 25mg that could be expanded according to the reaction of the body.
Federal law, 8 USC 1101(a) INA 101(a) (42) states:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

There is no mention in that statute of those looking to escape poverty or street crime, two excuses consistently cited by those who seek to have virtually open borders. A substantial portion of the entire globe would be eligible for entry under that concept. Indeed, the citizens of many U.S. cities would be eligible as well. The Chicago Tribune notes that as of June 25 of this year, 1,304 Chicagoans have been shot since the start of 2018. Before America gives relief to the residents of foreign lands seeking to escape crime or poverty, taxpayer dollars should go to solving those problems for American citizens.

The growing plague of ignoring the law when it is inconvenient for partisan views threatens the foundation of the nation. It is a practice that should end.

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 9^th 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.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.