The reliably liberal 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals used bizarre logic this week when it ruled against the travel ban President Donald Trump imposed by executive order.
The judges may not have agreed with the president’s approach, but they are free to run for president if they want to write policies themselves. The Constitution empowers the president to safeguard the citizenry and to protect our shores when he believes there is a threat, even if his tactics are debatable.
Not only did the court come to the wrong conclusion, but it also had a bad reason for doing so. It said, incredibly, that the ban was improper because it did not ensure due process to people affected by the order.
Following the court’s thinking means that the United States would have to hold an official hearing for anyone wanting to come to this country from one of the seven nations connected with the ban. Due process protections are cherished, American rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but to require the government to protect those rights for non-citizens who aren’t even on U.S. soil is absurd.
Certainly, no one would want our government to abuse non-citizens who are in this country. It would be as wrong to railroad a visa holder with an unfair trial as it would be to convict any innocent American. But that’s not what we’re talking about. This isn’t about a foreign tourist, student or visiting dignitary accused in a U.S. court. It’s about people who aren’t in this country, aren’t citizens of this country and merely want to be in this country.
This ruling is not the first time that argument has been made. It’s the same twisted reasoning that’s led the United States to have to hold lengthy, expensive trials for captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, which, by the way, is in Cuba.