Yes, eat you

The US Supreme Court with a majority unanimously ruled that the presidential decree on the ban on the entry into America to citizens of some countries does not contradict the Constitution. President Trump responded to this news on Twitter in a word of three letters: Wow! In addition to glee, a word expresses amazement. From which it follows that the administration until the last moment was not sure of the result.

On the seventh day of his stay as president, Donald Trump signed a decree that sharply limited the right of Muslims to enter the United States. The legal basis of the document was the law on the 1952 immigration and naturalization, which says that the president has the right to ban his entry into the country to “any foreigners or any category of foreigners” for a term, which will consider it necessary if the stay of these foreigners in the United States, in his opinion, harms the interests of the state. The decree reduced the refugee reception quota to 50 thousand people a year, froze this technique for four months (as long as more effective verification methods will not be developed), he canceled the reception of refugees from Syria and for three months banned the entry of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somali, Sudan and Yemen.

The US customs and border service began its execution on the same day. For Friday and Saturday, hundreds of people accumulated at American international airports who suddenly lost their right to enter. Some of them were either detained for additional verification, or sent back.

Among the detainees were two Iraqis, who collaborated with American troops and received the right to live in the United States under a special program for Iraqis and Afghans, whose life is at risk due to such cooperation. Wives and children of both live in the United States legally.

The lawyers of the American Union of Civil Freedoms immediately applied to the court. On January 28, the Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of the state of New York Ann Donnelli forbade the US government to deport persons with real visas or in refugee status. On the same day later, another federal judge, Leoni Brinkma in Virginia, suspended the effect of the paragraph of the Decree, which prevents the return of permanent residents of the United States to their families. The situation at the airports was somewhat discharged.

On February 3, President Trump was waiting for a new blow: in Seattle, the Federal District Judge James Robart decided to the claim of the General Prosecutors of the Washington and Minnesot, who claimed that the presidential decree caused severe damage to business and is unconstitutional, as it introduces discrimination on a religious basis. Judge Robart suspended the execution of the decree throughout the United States to the future until the case on the merits.

Donald Trump, in turn, called the decision of Judge Robart "politically motivated" and "shameful", and on Twitter put it like this:

The decision of the so -called judge, which essentially deprives our country of law enforcement, will be ridiculous and will be canceled!

But to cancel the decision in court was not easy. The decisions of the courts were based on the amendment to the 1952 law, adopted in 1965. She says: "No person should get an advantage or priority or undergo discrimination when issuing an immigration visa on the basis of his race, gender, citizenship, place of birth or place of residence." In addition, according to human rights activists, the decree violates the first amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the publication of laws prohibiting any religion. A unpleasant surprise was presented to the president by his appointment as a member of the Supreme Court Nile Gorsach. He called the president’s words at the judge of Robart “annoying” and “demoralizing”.

But unexpected uninvited support to President Trump in this difficult moment for him was provided by Syrian President Bashar Assad, who was interviewed in Baghdad by the correspondent of Newsweek magazine Michael Izikoff.

*Question: In your opinion, are some of these refugees related to terrorists?

Assad: Undoubtedly. This can be found on the Internet, in some cases, of course: photos of the same people first as terrorists in Syria, they hold machine guns in their hands or kill people, and then they appear in Europe or generally in the West under the guise of peaceful refugees.

Question: And how many, in your opinion, terrorists among four million eight hundred thousand refugees?

Assad: Nobody knows this, because no one knows the total number of terrorists - means it is impossible to calculate the percentage.

Question: But do you think this is a significant number?

Assad: It's not about numbers. A lot of people are not required to make a crime. [The attacks] September 11 [2001] arranged only 15 terrorists from probably millions of immigrants in the United States.*

On February 9, the new US Minister of Justice, Jeff Sehnes, was taken to swear. "The new era of justice has begun!" - President Trump announced at the ceremony. On the same day, he recorded on his Twitter:

See you in court, the safety of our country at the stake!

However, the decision of the Court of Appeal, which followed the same day in the evening, turned out to be unsatisfactory for the president: a collegium of three judges committed the arguments of the government unconvincing and upheld the decision of Judge Robart. The president called this result "shameful". But the US government did not apply to the Supreme Court. Instead of continuing the litigation, the Trump administration prepared a new version of the decree. From the list of countries from where the entry into the United States is prohibited, Iraq was crossed out and a number of exceptions were added, primarily for owners of a residence permit. Subsequently, five Muslim countries remained on the list, but North Korea and Venezuela were added. Donald Trump called him "diluted, political correct version of" the original prohibition. However, this version was protested in court and blocked.

The US government appealed to the Supreme Court with a motion to cancel decisions of lower courts and to unlock the decree for the time while the issue is considered. The court allowed to apply the decree in the second version, but with a significant reservation. Citizens of the six listed states will be able to enter the United States if they can submit reliable confirmation of the reality of their relations with an individual or legal entity in the United States. It is not clear from the document what is meant by the expressions of “reliable confirmation” and “reality of relations” (Bona fide Relationship), but in any case it is obvious that the issue is transferred from group to individual level. In fact, everyone who wants to get an American visa passes such a check.

President Trump called this decision by his "complete victory." In fact, the court did not make any decision then. He only accepted the case for consideration, but for now it is being considered, allowed the immigration authorities to apply the presidential decree, but in a limited volume.

And now, finally, the Armed Forces decided on the merits. The Chairman of the court, John Roberts, who stated the opinion of the majority, noted that the text of the decree does not say anything about religion, but only about the interests of national security. Most believe that the president has not gone beyond his authority. The court cannot evaluate the degree of threat of national security, the majority opinion is stated, since such estimates are always complex and they are largely present in the forecast elements. " As for the Islamofobic rhetoric of the president, it is not related to business.

During the trial, the government’s lawyers referred to the decision of the 1944 Supreme Court in the Koremets against the United States. The plaintiff then tried to achieve the cancellation of the presidential decree on the internation of American citizens of Japanese origin. However, the court decided that the decree was dictated by the legitimate interests of national security. Since then, the US government has officially recognized the interval with a mistake, the victims received material compensation by the decision of the Congress, but the court’s decision has not yet been canceled. The court did not cancel it this time - he only stated that the reference to him in this case was inappropriate: that decree was "morally flawed", but Trump’s decree was not.

Two judges of the remaining in the minority, on the contrary, believe that both decree rely on the same shaky foundation - the interests of national security, not confirmed and not proved. They also do not agree that the president’s public statements are not related to the case: “The president has never renounced his statements regarding Islam,” and any “sane observer will conclude that the decree is mainly dictated by a hostile attitude towards Muslims.”

Naturally, Trump's supporters met the court decision with violent joy. The influential Senator Republican Lindsay Graham wrote on Twitter:

We are at war with radical Islam and must act accordingly in order to protect our country.

Congressman-Democrat Kate Ellison, a Muslim on religion, said, for his part, that the decision of the Armed Forces "undermines the value of America as religious tolerance" and "legalizes discrimination and Islamophobia." And his one -party senator Chris Kuns said that Trump’s decree is “formally constitutional, but this does not mean that he is correct or justified.” It is no less difficult to deny that this is Trump’s victory and his view on the methods of combating terror. The decision of the Supreme Court will not help this struggle at all - after all, no terrorist attacks happened in America due to the fact that the decree was blocked by the courts, but those that happened before were arranged not by aliens, but by naturalized or nee US citizens. But the solution of the Armed Forces is a significant propaganda argument to Islamic extremism.

In the current composition of the Supreme Court, five judges were appointed presidents -republicans and four by democrats. The watershed passes along this line. Decisions on resonant matters are made by five votes against four. This is a creeping anti-liberal counter-revolution, a gradual abandonment of the great conquests of the 60s of the last century. In the next two or three years, most likely, two more representatives of the liberal wing will resign and illness, and Donald Trump will be able to appoint his like-minded people in their places.