Supreme Court Ruling on Muslim Ban Could Lead to Bigger Victories
A win in the Supreme Court gives Trump an opportunity to press his agenda—and to ban more third world people from America.
by Jay Lorenz
President Trump’s travel ban on six Muslim countries (Libya, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan) won a victory in the Supreme Court last week. The court plans to hear the case in the fall, and in the meantime has allowed for a partial implementation of the order, which went into effect at 8pm last Thursday. In a thirteen page opinion, the court unanimously approved a limited version of the ban, ruling that people “who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with a person or organization in the United States will be exempt. The stipulation also applies to the ban on refugees from those countries. Anyone from those countries not meeting the criteria is banned from traveling to the United States for 90 days, and refugees from the countries are banned for 120 days.
The biggest issue with the ruling is the ambiguity of the term “bona fide relationship.” Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas all voted to affirm the ban without this exemption. In his written opinion, Thomas pointed out that “the compromise will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship.'” Expect various (((civil rights))) and (((refugee resettlement))) groups to attempt to define the term in their favor. They will likely attempt to include any contact with a refugee organization as a bona fide relationship, which would include anyone who is a part of the U.S. refugee program. The Trump administration will simultaneously fight for a narrower interpretation of the term—its guidelines state that only people with “close family” in the United States will be considered to have a bona fide relationship, by which the administration means only nuclear family members and in-laws. Visa and green card holders, anyone already granted asylum, and people with business or university ties in the U.S. will also be exempt via the guidelines. The litigation began immediately on Thursday, when the Attorney General of Hawaii, Douglas Chin, filed a motion to clarify the scope of the ban. The legal battle over the policy is likely to continue until the Supreme Court hearing this fall.
Unlike in January, the ban was implemented quietly. The confusion that occurred at airports over how to implement the ban the first time was avoided. Mass protests were also absent this time around, as only small protests occurred at New York and Los Angeles airports. Something that did not change however, was the presence of advocacy groups such as Amnesty International at major airports to monitor the implementation of the ban, and the presence of lawyers, who showed up to offer free legal assistance to the mostly Muslim travelers. Wherever anything is being done to protect the interests of Whites, you can expect to find these people and organizations.
The implications of this ruling are very good for both the Trump agenda and the Alt Right agenda on immigration. This unanimous ruling on a very similar policy gives a significant boost to the real ban’s chances this fall. Indications are that it will be upheld in its entirety. After that, Trump should press the initiative, perpetually renewing the order and expanding it to encompass more nations. A victory in the Supreme Court will open up avenues for much stricter regulation, if the Trump administration wishes to go there.
After suffering numerous defeats in the very liberal lower courts, this legitimate ruling on the ban is refreshing. We are halfway home to having the ban implemented. Remember, however, that the ban itself is only a first step. Hopefully this prolonged battle has given Trump the desire to punish those who have opposed his lawful order—a Trump seeking revenge is the best Trump. If the Supreme Court delivers, Trump will have the sort opportunity he relishes. The current iteration of the travel ban is not a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” but it’s a start.