Last week, the Trump administration scored a few major victories that have conservatives across the country cheering. The first win to note was that the House passed two bills that would crack down on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities across the nation. And, just as the liberal left was adjusting to that stunning defeat they received another stunning blow to their overinflated egos.
Thanks in part to the Obama administration, the world witnessed the birth of the millennial snowflake. These dirty hipsters have overrun the country with their confused gender orientation and feelings based politics. This generation has been used to the former administration that placed how they feel over what was indeed fact.
That is demonstrated when you witness how these snowflakes reacted when Trump attempted to enact a travel ban. Instead of these granola eating hipsters listening to what the ban entailed, they went off the deep end with their insane rhetoric. States around the country blocked the travel ban saying that it was unconstitutional and racist. However, after months of this insanity, the Supreme Court issued a stunning ruling that has shut these libtards up.
One of those components upheld was that people entering America would have to have a “bonafide connection” to someone here. Of course, that makes perfect sense to anyone with that has functioning reasoning skills down. What that means is that someone entering the country must have a personal relationship. The guidelines state that only family members who are a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, a daughter-in-law who are already inside the U.S. would constitute a “bona fide” personal relationship. However, other close family relationships such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces or cousins would not be considered “bona fide” family ties.
That seems pretty reasonable to me, however, one group is losing their mind over this logical guideline.
Take a listen to this spokesperson from the International Refugee Assistance Project.
Does this woman actually think that this brand of social justice will sway the opinion of the Supreme Court? Listen up snowflakes, this is not about others people’s feelings or how you feel. This is simply about upholding the law of the land and that gives the executive office the power to implement these sorts of bans.
This is not the first time either that a president has enacted this sort of ban. In fact, three other president’s have issued a ban and for much longer time periods.
After the 2009 discovery that two al Qaeda terrorists were living as refugees in Bowling Green, Ky., President Obama took action. “As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets,” ABC New reported in 2013. “One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.”
Also, in 1979 Jimmy Carter took a very similar approach when he banned Iranians from entering the United States after 52 Americans were taken, hostage. Carter also kicked out all diplomats and banned Iranians from entering into America.
“The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now,” Carter said in announcing the move. “Other actions may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages.”
Oh, but the creme de la creme of them all is the FDR ban. This ban limited the number of Jews entering into America in fear that they could be Nazi spies. Oh, and how can we forget the 120,000 Japanese internment camps that popped up after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. More than 60 percent of Americans were imprisoned because of this, but you don’t hear liberals bring this up, do you?
The fact of the matter is this. The left does not care that this ban is temporary and is only being enacted so that the Trump administration can understand the vetting process better. In fact, the left has even admitted that if Hillary Clinton was the one that had issued this ban they would not have an issue with it.
ACLU Lawyer Omar Jadwat argued against President Trump’s travel ban before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in May. Jadwat admitted that if the travel ban was enacted by Hillary Clinton it “could be” constitutional.
Take a listen here.
These leftist lunatics do not care about the American people, but only about themselves and their twisted agenda. The fact that the ban was upheld and these liberal snowflakes have to sit down and shut the hell up is music to my ears.
President Trump said we would get tired of winning under his leadership, but I can’t see that happening anytime soon.
SHARE IF YOU ARE PROUD THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN WAS UPHELD BY THE SCOTUS!
H/T [ Yes I’m Right ]