Tag: Phil Bryant

“Not a pretext of religious discrimination?” Wrong

“Not a pretext of religious discrimination?” Wrong


“The exclusion of aliens is also a core federal prerogative: a power ‘inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers…” 

On 3/27 nearly a month after Donald Trump’s proposed travel ban 2.0 was affirmed in a circuit appeals court, an amicus brief, a document filed in response for court case consideration, was filed. The authors were attorneys generals from 12 Republican led states including Texas, Florida, and Louisiana along with Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant. Headlines across the country read that Trump order was now backed by many prominent immigration prone states, the actual brief basically stated:

States included in amicus brief supporting travel ban.
  • States do not have the authority to set immigration standards that threaten citizen safety and national security.
  • Congress has delegated the case of immigration limitation to the executive branch and this is a utilization of that.
  • The order is not a pretext of religious discrimination.
  • The Obama administration also identified the same 6 countries banned as “countries of concern.”
  • “The Executive Order does not violate due process because nonresident aliens abroad have no liberty interest in seeking admission into the country; therefore, no constitutional claims accrue from a suspension of those aliens’ ability to enter.”

First and foremost not a month goes by without a U.S. citizen or SUSPECTED terrorist being killed in unmanned drone strikes, given no form of due process. Which has led to multiple lawsuits on both the Obama and Trump administrations by organizations like the ACLU and CCR. The case the states involved make in the generic facade idea of banning the terrorists and criminals, for unspoken religious reasons. The less than 1% makeup of Muslims in America mainly occupy the south and midwest which have seen major gains in Muslim followers since 2000.

Graph shows % change of Islam adherence from 2000-2010.

The states that have seen the largest rises in Muslim populations are also the same states in which Islam is the largest non Christian groups. Those states include: Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, West Virginia, and South Dakota, EIGHT of the THIRTEEN states that have also pledged their support behind the travel ban. Although the brief claims the ban is not for religious reasons, why would the state governments of the mainly Muslim populated states urge for passage? Many friends and family of those in these states would have no form of transportation unless verified already and traveling back and forth is extremely unpredictable just as in the case after the first inaction of the ban.

The lack of statistics in the brief are extremely questionable and just seem like a following of political and party politics with disregard of those living in their own states.