 |
| 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.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment