Trump's Travel Ban Gets Preliminary Supreme Court Approval

Lower courts still see issues with the ban.

President Trump's blatant dislike of anyone of Muslim descent seems to have gotten support from the Supreme Court.

The president's travel ban, which in its various forms has attempted to block the arrival of Muslims from six Muslim countries into the United States, has been a hotly contested one since he first put it forward not long after taking office. With various judges across states blocking the travel ban with the argument that it was unconstitutional, if not prejudicial towards the Muslim community, it comes as some surprise that Supreme Court justices have by a majority allowed, at least on a preliminary basis, for the travel ban to pass as it stands currently.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the sole voices of dissent when it came to bringing new life to Trump's travel ban, according to Star-Telegram.

I am not generally one to buy into sweeping statements, or blanket moves that deliberately exclude sectors of the population. I had a conversation with my kids with regards to "good" and "bad" people, and while news reports would indicate that there have been a significant number of terrorists that are Muslim, banning the whole lot of them sends a dangerous message as well.

See, kids look at the message Trump is sending with regards to the Muslim population looking to come to the United States, and the message they receive is probably not "Mr. Trump is protecting us from bad guys."  Bad guys, to children, frequently dress all in black and look angry a good lot of the time. If one member of a certain group isn't allowed to go somewhere, as is the case here, children will assume it's because they did something bad. Since all members of the Muslim community are potentially affected, in one respect or another, by Trump's travel ban, a child's logical assumption would be that members of the Muslim community must be bad and apply that logic to all members of that community.


  • Do all women wear dresses?  No way.
  • Are all men gifted with big muscles and look like Duane "The Rock" Johnson? Nope.
  • Are all individuals who steal doing so because they are bad? No - sometimes they may just see no other way.
  • Are all individuals who seem angry all the time genuinely so? No. We all have baggage that we don't talk about with others.

And again, but...

There are some members of each community who fall into these sorts of habits. There are some Muslims who are, indeed, terrorists, and unfortunately - and even painfully - that means the law-abiding, compassionate individuals who would never consider such terrible acts are continuing to face undeserved hatred. Thanks to Donald Trump, we now find ourselves in a world where the belief that blanket bans and wanton racism will somehow keep us safer over common sense.  

I am not suggesting that there is no issue with terrorism - far from it.  What troubles me is the blanket nature of a ban when not everyone is an offender, and that the message seems to become that all people of one particular culture are "bad."  It's not all people. While I appreciate that there are no concrete ways of screening out terrorists, how many times have we read that an offender was on the FBI's radar just prior to something tragic occurring? Maybe instead of simply monitoring a situation when something seems amiss, more stringent questioning needs to occur of these suspects that set off the "radar," in one respect or another.  

Maybe a more concrete plan of monitoring needs to occur with these individuals that are causing concern rather than a notation on a file.

Maybe we need better security rather than simply saying to everyone, "You can't come here."

Blanket statements don't work.

Clear plans do.

Now Reading
Trump's Travel Ban Gets Preliminary Supreme Court Approval
Read Next
Why Did the Founding Fathers Create the Electoral College?