“Trump has insisted that the measure is necessary to prevent possible terrorist attacks. But courts in previous rulings blocking its enforcement have cited past statements from Trump and his advisors signaling that it may single out Muslims.”
Meanwhile, Muslims continue singling out non-Muslims for jihad terror attacks. If the UK had had Trump’s ban in place years ago, the father of the Manchester jihad mass murderer, who himself has links to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State would not have been admitted into the country from Libya, and the Manchester jihad massacre would not have happened.
But to think this way is “Islamophobic.” We must allow our people to be murdered in jihad attacks, and take no steps to prevent these attacks. Any such steps would “single out Muslims”!
The appeals court decision claims that the Executive Order “in text speaks in vague terms of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.”
In context? Is Manchester any relevant context? Or any of the other recent jihad terror attacks?
“Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump’s travel ban: NBC News,” CNBC, May 25, 2017:
A federal appeals court has upheld the nationwide block of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, NBC News reported.
The ruling came from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It upholds the suspension of a revised version of the executive order that the Trump administration crafted to better hold up to legal scrutiny than an earlier version.
Trump has insisted that the measure is necessary to prevent possible terrorist attacks. But courts in previous rulings blocking its enforcement have cited past statements from Trump and his advisors signaling that it may single out Muslims.