A federal judge in Hawaii, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson, stopped President Trump’s revised travel ban cold in its tracks. The judge blasted the new Executive Order on travel ban as unconstitutional, discriminatory and damaging to Hawaii’s economy (harming in particular education, technology and tourism industries).
The modified travel ban was to suspend the U.S. refugee program for 120 days and stop the issuance of new visas to citizens of Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Libya and Syria for 90 days. Even though this time the ban doesn’t include Iraq, would not have affected green-card holders and specified several exceptions, at its core the “revised” travel ban is still specifically anti-Muslim.
U.S. District Judge Watson is the first to issue an opinion. A federal judge in Maryland followed with the same decision already. Washington State is expected to issue its opinion as well. Los Angeles is against the revised travel ban, too.
In response, President Trump called the decision of U.S. District Judge Watson an “unprecedented judicial overreach” and promised to fight the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.
In the context of today’s decision it may be note-worthy that just yesterday, President Trump met with Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohammad, who is also the Saudi defense minister, and both parties found the meeting gratifying. (Saudi Arabia is not among the countries affected by either one of President Trump’s travel bans. One has to wonder about America’s commitment to Saudi Arabia in spite of the fact that the 9/11 terrorists where either Saudis or otherwise had strong ties to Saudi Arabia. In contrast, no citizen of either Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Libya or Syria has ever committed an act of terrorism against the United States.)
The rationale of either of the travel bans doesn’t hold up: we’re not even attempting to protect our Country from Saudi Arabia while fanatically blocking entry to the United States of people who have never posed a threat to us. Apart from being unconstitutional, even the revised travel ban is hardly rational.
Were the travel bans intended to keep us safe from terrorists we would all rally to support them. Neither one of them is: not the old one and not the revised one. Many United States District Judges – not to mention millions and millions of Americans – can see that clearly. The travel bans may well serve some agenda, but certainly not the stated one.
Anything L.A. Magazine’s Editor, E. Elrich