This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump’s executive order placing certain travel restrictions on those attempting to enter the U.S. from certain countries in Africa and the Middle East.
The court’s action on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project appears to be unanimous in the order.
Was it “unanimous?” The order doesn’t really say that.
We don’t know what Justices voted, how they voted on the order or what the discussions consisted of.
The bulk of the Trump administration travel restrictions were ordered to be allowed to take effect.
Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017
The President is arguably also vindicated in the firing of Sally Yates, former Deputy Attorney General. Yates refused to enforce the travel restrictions order.
The Supreme Court will hear the full case in their Fall session.
Read the SCOTUS Opinion.
This order has been decried by progressives, Democrats and members of the media as a ‘Muslim ban’ and outright affront against the principles of free and open immigration that our country has as a part of its DNA.
The bulk of Trump’s travel restrictions order being upheld is a huge win for the administration.
“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective,” said President Trump.
As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” Trump said. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”
Again – Was it “unanimous?” The order doesn’t really say that. We don’t know what Justices voted, how they voted on the order or what the discussions consisted of.
This seems to be a reasonable claim by the President.
As President, he is equipped with the power of Commander in Chief and his primary role is to keep Americans safe.
President Obama issued an nearly identical set of travel restrictions. Where was the outrage when he did his job?
What does safety cost?
Can a free society remain free when we set the precedent that some are not welcome on our shores?
Economist and political philosopher, Hans Hermann Hoppe argues that a free society cannot have both open borders and maintain protection of individual property rights.
“By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services (such as hospitals and schools), and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.”
Nation states grant citizenship to individuals so that they can enjoy the protections of that state and to participate in certain collectivized goods and services such as road use and emergency services.
The citizens of that state pay into a system so that their money can be allocated to the maintenance and protection of these services.
Open border and lenient immigration policies do not in fact uphold the ideals of individual property rights.
In fact, these policies erode them. If we adhere to the principles of the nation state then we must enforce strict immigration policies.
This doesn’t mean we restrict anyone from entering our country, it means we take a more scrutinized view of those who would enter.
Would you let any stranger into your home who may or may not pose a threat to you or your loved ones? If not, why then let any stranger into your nation?
It would be an amazing world to live in if immigration was only limited to the consent of private property owners deciding who could be on their property and for how long.
It would be an amazing world if the rule of law isolated certain individuals who had the intent to do harm from peace loving people.
Sadly, this is not the world we live in.
Travel Restrictions Uphold A Sworn Duty
Donald Trump is well within his right to implement a temporary restriction on immigration. He has sworn to protect the people of the United States and he upheld his duty.
It may not be politically correct.
It might not be ”˜nice’ to restrict people to enter the U.S.
It’s maybe not even be in keeping with the ”˜tradition’ of this country.
Considering current world events, restriction of travel to the U.S. from nations that harbor potentially dangerous individuals is justified – if we adhere to the concept and governmental structure of the nation state.
Honesty Has To Happen
We must be honest with ourselves. Most of the terror related events worldwide are committed by individuals guided by beliefs that reside in radical Islam.
Nations that harbor this type of religion have brought a travel ban on their citizens, on themselves.
If they were working in the best interest of their citizens, they would work with our government to weed out bad actors and secure good opportunities for good citizens.
Trump has not asked for a permanent travel restriction.
Trump has asked for a stay on immigration from these nations so that we can better organize our vetting system. This is more than reasonable.
Our Founders would have considered Trump’s stay reasonable as well.
They didn’t found this country based on letting just anyone enjoy the hard fought freedoms and the privileges.
It is a privilege to be an American citizen. Our citizens collectively pay for services through the state and they deserve collective protection from that state.
The balance of trading freedoms for security will always be a facet of the nation state. It’s a balance tied to its relationship with its people.
However, the state should never ask its citizens to sacrifice their security to allow the those who might do them harm access to our nation’s rights and privileges.