After striking down the travel ban in President Trump’s executive order, the 9th Circuit Court claimed that there was no evidence indicating that terrorists had come from the countries singled out by the ban. A report by the Center for Immigration Studies has revealed that 72 individuals convicted of terrorism had in fact come from the countries in question, with at least 17 of them entering the United States as refugees.
The uproar over the travel ban has been peculiar considering the nations singled out by President Trump’s executive order are the same that the Obama administration cited as being prone to producing terrorists, general instability, and a potential danger to Americans both at home and abroad. Many arguments against the Trump ban continue to focus on the past, while ignoring the more obvious reasoning in support of a temporary ban: the present-day threat posed by individuals in the Middle East and north Africa, specifically those who maintain loyalties to effective terror groups like the Islamic State.
It’s not like there haven’t been instances of immigrants causing harm to innocent populations in recent memory- who’s to say that we aren’t just as vulnerable?
Of the 72 convicted terrorists highlighted in the CIS report, 20 came from Somalia, 19 from Yemen, 19 from Iraq, 7 from Syria, 4 from Iran, 2 from Libya, and 1 from Sudan. They lived in 16 different states. Minnesota and Washington, two states that claimed President Trump’s travel ban caused harm to their interests, were home to some of those convicted. In fact, after New York (10 terrorists), Minnesota ranked just below them with 8 convicted terrorists living in the state at the time of their arrests.
While this evidence should be considered more than enough to justify a temporary ban, the Immigration and Nationality Act renders much of the controversy unnecessary. The Act affords the President the right to suspend the flow of aliens seeking to enter the country at any time, and for any reason. The 9th Circuit Court, which prides itself on emotion-driven judicial activism, has clearly decided its political interests supersede the national interest of securing the country and protecting its citizens from harm.