- The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 5, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Citizens from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad — terror hotspots, all — and North Korea, as well as segments of Venezuela, are now barred from entering the United States, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump’s executive attempt to secure the nation and stop the flow of potential terrorists across the borders.

Finally, a court ruling with reason. This ban has been slung about the press as racist — as a progressive-minded propaganda talking point — for far too long, weaving into lower courts’ decisions as overrules of the president’s true intent.

It’s not as if this ban completely keeps out citizens from these countries, along with Venezuela, either. It’s just that it allows immigration and intelligence officials to be more selective.

The open border, amnesty loving, everybody and anybody’s welcome days of Barack Obama’s administration are ended.

As The New York Times notes: “Iran, for example, will still be able to send its citizens on student exchanges, though such visitors will be subject to enhanced screening. Somalis will no longer be allowed to emigrate to the United States, but may visit with extra screening.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions cheered the ruling as a “substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, on the other hand, did not.

“President Trump’s anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret — he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter,” said Omar Jadwat, the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said to The New York Times.

That’s how the left has played the ban for months — since Trump first brought it forward. And it’s bunk. It’s not Trump’s fault most terrorists hail from mostly Muslim nations; it’s not the White House’s fault most terror attacks are committed by those who scream “allah akbar” and claim adherence to the Islam god.

Barring those from nations with mostly Muslim populations and long and egregious histories of terror-tied activities isn’t discriminatory. It’s common sense.

And now, seven of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices, minus Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, have agreed.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide