Trump welcomes divisive ruling on migrants

Five justices of the US Supreme Court recently turned the obvious into ineffable judicial wisdom.

That’s by upholding President Donald Trump’s travel ban to the United States of citizens from seven countries - five Muslim-majority - on national security grounds. The countries are Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela.

The lower federal courts had overturned the ban on various grounds, including stealth religious bias.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the president’s ban had "legitimate groundings in the national security concerns." The ruling ignored intent, important in judicial proceedings.

LATENT BIGOTRY

Since the February 26, 1993 terrorist attack national security lapses have become as alarming as a missed heartbeat in the US, culminating in the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks by foreign-born adherents affiliated to Al-Qaeda, a group which follows a warped form of Islam.

The attacks inflamed latent bigotry against all brands of Islam as a threat to Western civilisation, as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the country’s global salesperson, asserts. Immigrants and migrants from what Trump has called "shithole" countries have been thrown into the "threat to our values and way of life" dump.

Candidate Trump in 2016 excited constituents with pronouncements like: “Islam hates us.” “We are having problems with Muslims coming to this country.” “You need surveillance to deal with mosques.” Trump is calling for a total shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States” et al.

FACILITATE VETTING

Then in office Trump comes up with a ban but because of lower federal court’s rejections and public protests, he exempts two, Chad and Iraq, in a third try. Venezuela and North Korea are included as fig leaf. It’s hard to think he had no bias against Muslims or intent to smother them.

The administration’s argument is that the presidential imposed the ban against persons from countries incapable of providing information to facilitate vetting by US authorities. The position is based on findings in "classified" findings, a known cover of officialdom lies.

Commenting on the ruling in The Washington Post newspaper, Jasmine El-Gamal, formerly of the Department of Defense, and Susannah Cunningham, co-founder of Only Through US, noted, paraphrased here: “Fifty-two former national security leaders, including five former CIA directors, two former defense secretaries, two secretaries of state and other senior officials wrote a letter to the court prior to the ruling ‘outlining the false national security claim to the travel ban’."

ANIMOSITY

It’s not farfetched to say, combined they know more than Trump does about national security, that members of his Cabinet, more interested in presidential parading like Sunday school kids, aren’t much use as advisers.

Trump called the ruling "a tremendous victory for the American people." The Council on America-Islamic Relations was closer to reality: “Other than the Supreme Court’s five justices, everyone can see the decision for what its: an expression of animosity."