Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Federal judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach'


Summary:  A federal judge in Hawaii blocked President Donald Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the new travel ban was set to go into effect. The new travel ban would have banned people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. But unlike the previous executive order, the new one removed Iraq from the list of banned countries, exempted those with green cards and visas and removed a provision that arguably prioritizes certain religious minorities. US District Court Judge Derrick Watson concluded in no uncertain terms that the new executive order failed to pass legal muster at this stage and the state had established "a strong likelihood of success" on their claims of religious discrimination and that the revision to this new travel ban was not enough. Trump spoke the ruling during a rally Wednesday night in Nashville, introducing his statement as "the bad, the sad news". He later added "This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach", before pledging to take the issue to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Connection: This connects back to The National Origins Act, The Chinese Exclusion Act. Both of these acts excluded Chinese immigration coming to the United States. Even though these acts were later removed it made it illegal to use race, or ancestry as a way to deny these immigrants from entering our country, which is very similar to what Trump is trying to do with this travel ban. The order is bringing us back to the 19th and 20th centuries, where many immigrants were excluded from coming into America based on their race and where they come from 

Questions: What is your point of view on this topic
Do you believe we should pass this travel ban, for the security of our country?
Do you even think these immigrants coming from mainly the Middle East even pose a threat?
If you do not agree with Trump's travel ban. Why?


  1. Personal I believe passing the travel ban will do nothing in terms for the security for the United States because if someone really wants to try to commit a terrorist act upon the US they can find many ways to. I disagree with his travel ban because these immigrants coming from the Middle East pose no threat because they are just trying to escape a war torn country and are trying to get a better life.

  2. i believe that the travel ban should be abolished because it takes away the rights of everyone in this world that wants to travel to the united states

  3. I don't agree with the travel ban because most of the people being banned are innocent and you can't confirm the safety of the US just by banning those people from those certain countries.

    1. I totally agree with you Justin in how it should be abolished because, yes one can't confirm the safety of the United States by banning these people

  4. I think it's quite ironic how most of congress, at this point, is mostly republican, yet the bill STILL didn't pass. that was my first thought. after that, I felt relief because I don't think assigning a stereotype to a race and then preventing them into the country is right.

  5. I do not believe that we should pass this travel ban for the reason of having better security over our country because it is unfair for those citizens who are fleeing their own country to get away from, say, oppression. I do not think that immigrants coming from the Middle East pose as threats to our country because those who believe so have a prejudice against them and are uncomfortable with the idea that there are more cultures that will make up America.