Donald Trump had a tendency during his presidential campaign to open his mouth before using discretion. Perhaps that’s why he got elected, because his lack of discretion appealed to conservatives. However, his promises to ban Muslims is now coming back to haunt him as his lawyers spent the day in court trying to separate the issue of national security and Trump’s promises to ban Muslims.
Lawyers for President Trump faced a skeptical panel of judges Monday in arguing that his travel ban from certain countries was based on national security concerns rather than a campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the country.
The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was considering the case, and judge after judge asked Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall about statements during the presidential campaign and afterward in which Trump talked about a Muslim ban.
Wall said the order for a 90-day ban on foreign travelers from certain countries was simply to protect the country by increasing vetting of those who are potentially dangerous. Courts should not look behind what the order itself provides.
Whether or not Trump promised to ban Muslims, his executive order affected people of all religions traveling from the specified countries. Many European nations have experienced the horror of allowing too many refugees and immigrants into their counties without proper screening. Obama’s vetting policies allowed the San Bernardino terrorists into the country along with who knows how many others.