|TRUMP: Loopier world leaders? Sadly!|
This is seen by more sensible people as Trump’s ham-handed way of trying to keep certain types of people out of the country – and perhaps a first step toward eventually deporting the ones like them that already exist here.
SO THERE IS concern from some here that the nation’s high court this week altered the previous rulings from federal appeals courts that said the president’s executive orders on the issue – which were amongst his first actions as president – were overstepping.
Of course, I’ve also heard from some law school professor-type people who say that this is the high court’s way of knocking the issue down. Since the Trump executive order only called for the restrictions to be in effect for 90 days.
Meaning that by the time the high court hears arguments on the case come its autumn work load, the order’s impact will already cease to have existed. If the high court rejects the idea, it will be like it never really existed in the first place.
Except that the presidential order put out the symbolic impression to the world that we’re headed back for isolationist ideals of the past – which might not be so bad except that it’s also clear Trump expects to maintain the international influence that the U.S. carries on issues.
USUALLY, THE PRICE of having such influence on foreign affairs is seen as having to get involved in the world’s problems. It’s as though Trump thinks he can bark orders at world leaders without having to carry any of the responsibility usually involved.
Does Trump really think the whole globe is a television set for “The Apprentice” where he can shout out “You’re Fired!” at anybody and everybody he wishes – and think that they’re obligated to listen to him?
Personally, I’m curious to see how this order gets implemented, because the high court did impose some restrictions. It seems the only people who are banned outright from being able to enter the United States are the ones from the certain countries in the Middle East who cannot document some sort of personal tie to someone who already is in this country.
Sound simple and straightforward? Of course it isn’t, and only a fool would think it is.
BECAUSE THERE ARE going to be so many interpretations of just what constitutes a personal tie.
Does it have to be a blood relation? Just how close of a relation does it have to be? Suppose someone can show a third- or fourth-cousin tie to someone in this country whom they’ve never met?
What about instances where people’s families have personal ties to other families and would want to offer up support? I can envision some pretty loose claims being put forth by those people wishing to enter the United States – many coming from countries where the level of insanity is so high that it is the so-called “crazy” people they’re trying to escape.
Pretty sad if you have such a lot in life where coming to a country with an electorate loony enough to pick Donald J. as its leader is an improvement, yet sadly enough, that is the case for some people.
IT’S ALSO GOING to become complicated by those bureaucratic types who will want to take on excessively strict interpretations of what a close tie to a U.S. resident actually means.
We’re talking about immigration, where there are those in our society who are all for keeping out anyone not exactly like themselves, and who view many legitimately married couples as not worthy of being in this country.
I’m sure the coming few months (beginning Thursday, which is when the new Trump executive order will take effect) are bound to produce tales of horror and woe caused by some bureaucrat whose nativist tendencies will run amok.
And even if the Supreme Court ultimately chooses to knock down Trump’s tendencies (never a sure thing), we’re bound to get a few anecdotes in the near future of our nation giving in to its worst tendencies.