June 26, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
16:33
3724 President Donald Trump's Travel Ban Reinstated | True News
On June 26th, 2017, the United States Supreme Court reinstated President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban and refugee restrictions with some confusing stipulations. Stefan Molyneux examines the the absurdity of this entire situation, how to really help refugees, and why this infuriates the regressive left. Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
The Supreme Court in the United States said just today that the ban proposed by the Trump administration on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen could be enforced as long as the people who want to come visit the United States lack a quote credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person who or entity in the United States.
The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.
So Thomas Alito and Gorsuch said they would have let the entire ban take effect with no limits whatsoever.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of the case and that it or the American society, American country, would suffer irreparable harm with any interference.
Thomas said the government's interest in preserving national security if not downright borders outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country thus affirming that American laws actually are designed to protect American citizens not people in other countries.
Now Of course, the left is going mental and other groups are going mental, but here's a basic reality check that's really, really important to understand.
So, there's a ban on a number of countries.
Yes, those countries are majority Muslim.
Here we go.
Are you ready?
We're just talking one year.
One year, 2016, the United States dropped how many bombs in seven Muslim-majority countries in 2016?
Yes, that would be 26,100 bombs.
The United States dropped at least 26,171 bombs in seven Muslim-majority countries in 2016.
That's right!
So for all the leftist groups out there who are saying it's discriminatory, it's negative, it's hostile.
Well, I gotta tell you, I think not offering someone a visa a little bit less hostile than bombing the ever-living crap out of them, their family, their extended family, their neighborhood, significant portions of their country, and anyone they've ever come in contact with who still remains in the fiery borders of death.
That has been set up by Obama.
And Hillary Clinton will get to that in a moment.
So, what are the countries that Barack Obama reigned death from above down on?
Well, we got Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.
Gosh, those are the countries targeted by US airstrikes.
Now, 2016 was a step up in the death from above scenario from 2015 when the US dropped at least 23,144 bombs on six Muslim-majority countries.
Libya was the seventh country bombed in 2016.
There's that.
Obama dropped, well, over the course of his tenure, about 100,000 bombs, some significant portion of that on five of the seven countries Trump wanted banned.
So if you have a problem with the ban because it's discriminatory, I think you should have a much bigger problem with the bombing campaigns under Hussein Obama because they were a lot more discriminatory in a much more deadly fashion.
Because here's the thing.
I don't know why this needs to be explained.
I guess it's because 20% of college students are book virgins and have never quite got around to finishing an actual book!
Ah, we'll talk about that later.
Anyway, here's a basic reality.
You can't drop bombs and visas in the same place at the same time.
You really can't do that.
You know, Churchill wasn't all about, let's bomb Germany, and at the same time, let's bring significant proportions of military-aged young German men into our country and pay for them to be here.
Ah, the level of unreality.
You cannot drop bombs and visas in the same place at the same...
Well, I guess you can.
I mean, technically, you can.
It just is a really, really terrible idea.
So, the court said today, the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen could be enforced, again, as long as they lack, the people who want to come lack, a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
Okay.
I'm no lawyer, but I know weasel words when I see them because I've justified dating pretty women with bad personalities in the past and everyone was confused hearing my explanations for it just as I'm confused about hearing this.
So, here are the words I have problems with in the quote from the Supreme Court.
Credible...
Who's to define what is a credible claim?
What does it mean to be credible?
What is the difference between credible and non-credible?
Is it objective?
Is it a shade of grey?
Any way the wind blows, it is a pendulum going back and forth.
Nobody knows.
A credible claim.
What is the difference between a claim and something that is enforceable?
I can claim anything I want.
I own the Titanic.
What is the actual enforceability?
So, credible claim.
We have two giant weasel words.
I can hear the giant vacuum-sucking sounds of lawyers with very expensive retainers bungeeing in to define all of this stuff and massive amounts of confusion coming out.
So, credible claim.
Who knows what that means?
Of a bona fide relationship!
Alright?
Please tell me what that means in objective terms.
Bonafide relationship.
Not a non-bonafide non-relationship, but in fact a bonafide relationship.
With a person or entity.
See, one of the problems, of course, with some of these countries, a lot of these countries that are in the travel ban, no real paperwork, no real way of verifying identity, and pretty much passports for sale or rent on the black market for a couple of shekels and perhaps half a camel.
The fact is that nobody knows who these people are.
So how on earth, let's say from Syria, where there's very little control over paperwork and you can basically write your own identity on a piece of papyrus with a crayon from Burger King.
So how are you supposed to know?
What is a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States?
This means absolutely nothing.
In fact, it's worse than nothing because I guess the only words that make any kind of sense to me are United States.
Although it could be argued that if the United States cannot enforce any travel restrictions and everybody has a worldwide constitutional right to come to the United States, then the United States doesn't exist either.
That actually may be the most problematic word in that entire formulation.
Basically, these weasel words, this big giant cloud of gelatinous cove legal goo, is a license for lawyers to print money.
The Supreme Court has handed down a final decision that basically is ambiguous legal cash bait for massive amounts of immigration lawyers and other interested parties to go in and widen that definition as much as humanly possible.
So this is at least where it stands from the two lower court decisions, the fourth and the ninth rejected the travel ban entirely, which would lead one to believe that the lower courts have become somewhat, if not downright completely, politicized.
The Ninth Circuit is pretty terrible as a whole.
The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed 86% of the Ninth Circuit decisions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court.
They do remain the most overturned court in the world, or at least, sorry, in America.
So that seems somewhat important as well.
So what happens now?
Well, starting Thursday, the Trump administration will begin to ban some citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the U.S., For 90 days.
90 days.
Just to try and figure out what's going on.
The Trump administration will also be able to stop some refugees from entering America for 120 days.
So you can't enter as a refugee unless you are a persecuted minority.
This may translate into Christians.
Christians, of course, just last year, 90,000 of them slaughtered, mostly, of course, in...
Well, let's just say Middle Eastern countries where Christians are not the majority.
So, of course, some people think that this is a terrible thing.
I view this as a nice opportunity.
You know, Saudi Arabia, hundreds of thousands of air-conditioned tents just sitting around not being used at all.
Saudi Arabia now has a wonderful opportunity to step up and start taking refugees.
You know, take some of the burden off Turkey, which is currently pointing its refugee mass at the EU and threatening them.
Saudi Arabia has a wonderful opportunity to step up and do the right thing.
And also what's great about this is that if some of the refugees don't come to America, to the West as a whole, you get to help them in the Middle East.
And that is wonderful.
I've done presentations on this channel before where it's very easily the case, empirically proven to be the case.
That if you want to help people in the Middle East who are suffering dislocation or displacement, help them in the Middle East.
Don't bring them into the West.
If you help them in the Middle East, you can help 12 people for every one person you bring into the West.
So that's quite important.
Now, one big difference, of course, is that if they stay in the Middle East, they can't be imported into the West to vote for leftist political parties.
They can't be voting Labour in England.
They can't be voting Macron in France.
They can't be voting for Democrats in America.
Or liberals in Canada, for that matter.
So that is, of course, the big hiccup.
If you really want to help people, help them in the Middle East, you can help 12 people for every one person you bring into the West.
But that doesn't achieve the main aim of bringing refugees in, if not some of these other groups, which is to have them available in the long run to vote for the left, or at least get the votes of people who they know in the West as a whole.
So what are the takeaways?
What's to absorb from all of this stuff?
Well, As I mentioned, the Ninth Circuit is the most reversed appeals court in America.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
Needs to be broken up.
It's gone way too left, way too ideological.
You could look at the Fourth as well and a whole bunch of different places.
Activist judges have taken over the responsibility of Congress and are now basically making laws rather than merely passively interpreting them Which was, of course, the original intent.
So you need to focus on helping people over there.
The idea that the only way you help refugees is bringing them into the West or the only way you help people is bringing them into the West.
Absolute nonsense.
Completely false.
A total lie.
Now, if you help people over in the Middle East, you have to balance it out.
It is less profitable for immigration lawyers and church groups and charity groups and refugee groups that are currently taking hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to help resettle refugees.
So there is that.
I mean, you are actually helping people 12 to 1, but you are, of course, robbing lawyers of their money.
And hey, man, they need to gold paint their yachts just like the rest of us.
So let's make sure that the welfare of migrants helps feed the legal institutions that try and settle them.
Of course, there will be less welfare cost because the amount of welfare consumed caused by refugees is enormous.
And there's another consideration as well, which is that, of course, at some point, we hope that these countries will be relatively stabilized.
For those who are refugees and not economic migrants, which is the vast majority of people pouring into, say, Italy, like only a couple of percentage points of the people pouring across the Mediterranean into Italy from North Africa are actual refugees.
The rest of them are just, you know, hey, we heard there was cheap welfare and free tablets and free Wi-Fi, so we're on our way.
So...
If you want these societies at some point to be rebuilt, if you're going to take the smartest refugees out of those societies, or the smartest people out of those societies as refugees, then what happens?
Well, there's no smart people left to rebuild those societies, in which case those societies are going to get even worse, which means the next wave of refugees are going to flee, which means the society gets even worse.
You understand there's no end.
To that particular avalanche.
No end at all.
Well, I guess there is an end, which is eventually Europe and North America sink into the sea from a human biomass with no end in sight.
That is an important thing to understand.
And of course, if you're not getting smart people, well, then they're going to have a really tough time integrating and they're never going to get off welfare, as is the case in Germany and other places.
Seems to be the case.
So you have to think these things through.
And of course, it is a challenge.
I'm trying to give you some takeaways so you can talk to people about this.
Now, nearly 39,000 Muslim refugees entered the U.S. in fiscal 2016.
That's the highest number on record, according to Pew Research.
Now, for those 39,000 that you're paying to bring all the way in and try and integrate into America, you could help 468,000 in the Middle East for the same money.
For the same money.
So, that is a hell of a lot.
There's hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that you're not helping.
By bringing people into the West.
You need to look at the opportunity cost, the unseen cost rather than the visible benefits.
Sure, you're helping some people, but 12 to 1 people are not being helped.
So this just comes down to simple logic, and I guess it's the kind of logic that a certain amount of peace has sanded off the horny reptile historical skins of our brains.
But here's the reality.
If the U.S. is bombing these countries, you can't take refugees.
Like, I'm sorry about that.
I mean, it just, it doesn't make any sense.
You can't vet them.
And if you're bombing them, you're kind of at war with them.
And the idea that a country that is at war with another country would take refugees from that country would take people...
Coming in from the country that they're bombing is so incomprehensible.
I don't even know how to explain that.
I guess it took until the 21st century for that to make sense.
Now, if it's not the U.S. that's bombing them, if it's another country that's bombing them, then the U.S. should put pressure on those countries to stop bombing them and take the refugees, or at least fund sanctuary zones in the region for those refugees to go to.
So this is just basic logic.
But everybody knows the reality.
It's not about...
It's not about helping people.
If you want to help people, you know, pro tip, if you want to help a population, first thing you need to do, it may not be the only thing you need to do, but it really is the first thing that you need to do if you want to actually help a population.
First thing you need to do, stop bombing them!
Stop bombing with tens of thousands of bombs their countries.
You know, it's kind of tough to say, well, we did set fire to your bakery and burn it to the ground along with half your family.
But don't worry, we've got some nice ratatouille for you because you might just be a little bit hungry.
Just stop bombing.
Stop bombing.
Stop bombing.
And that would be number one.
But people, no, it's not about helping people in the middle.
At least it's about importing votes for the Democrats.
See, if you bomb people, you're at war.
If you bomb people, if you bomb a country, you're at war with that country.
You can't take people, you can't take refugees, particularly military-age men.
And so if people are upset about this, well, these countries in the Middle East, we need to help them and so on.
Just remind them that Syria and Libya and some other countries in particular were destroyed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Why?
Because they took out the leaders, they armed and allied with radical Islamists in the region.
Oh, and of course, one George W. Bush really got the ball rolling by invading Iraq, committing what has, I think, been reasonably referred to as a war crime.
So, this is the reality.
Once you accept that you're at war, and sadly these bombs indicate that, and it would be great if those bombings were to stop, once you accept that you're at war, then you can make rational decisions.
Pretending you're not at war will only breed more war.
