The Supreme Court upheld the third version of Pres. Trump’s travel ban against the entry of certain persons into the USA. Many critics termed this a “Muslim travel ban,” that it never was. For example, it did not prohibit the entry of the vast majority of Muslims from most of the Muslim countries in the world, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. It is a ban against the entry of potential terrorists from the most dangerous countries in the world, where there have been civil wars and where the fundamentalist extremists, including ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Taliban have been active. These include Muslim-majority countries Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. In addition two non-Muslim nations are included in the ban, namely North Korea (despite Pres. Trump’s recent meeting with Kim Jong-Un) and also Venezuela.
Some of these countries can be considered “failed states,” where the government is not effectively functioning, such as Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Venezuela, and others can be considered states supporting anti-Western terrorism, such as N. Korea and Iran. The origin of the ban was to protect the US public from the entry of potential terrorists from these countries, particularly since it is impossible to distinguish terrorists from non-terrorists and the US asylum system is completely dysfunctional.
Because of the huge number of migrants and asylum seekers, the US system has been overwhelmed for years. There is no place to house those who request asylum in the US, and even if they have no good reason to be granted asylum, the law requires that they must come before a judge, and this takes months, so they are usually released into the public, where they quickly disappear. Is it comforting for US citizens to know that there are in fact thousands of undocumented asylum seekers freely roaming around the US, many of whom could be potential terrorists?
It was to put a stop to this ludicrous situation that Trump introduced this travel ban in the first place, and after some modifications, it has now been accepted by the Supreme Court as lawful. Let those who opposed it because of their liberal views now come to terms with the fact that this partial ban is intended to protect their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens.