Trump admits again his travel ban endangered the USA

COVID-19 Response

Like everyone else, we urge you to wash your hands and engage in social distancing.

Unlike everyone else, we urge you to also help with this smart plan to get more tests, ventilators, and PPE. Everyone can do that plan right now, at home, in just 15 minutes.

If enough people help with the plan we can save lives. Take time out now and help get more desperately-needed supplies.

The Supreme Court is temporarily allowing parts of Trump's travel/Muslim ban to continue. In response, the Donald Trump administration has released a statement including an unwitting admission that Trump's actions made the USA less safe:

Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective.

As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.

My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.

In other words, Trump is saying that, because of the Supreme Court decision, he'll finally be able to keep the USA safe. That means that the USA was less safe before. That means that Trump was letting in potential "bad dudes" all during the previous six months or so.

If you're a Trump supporter, pause and think about that for a second. Trump can't say the USA is safer now if it wasn't less safe before. He was in charge during the previous six months and could have easily ramped up screening in order to keep out "bad dudes". If you say he ramped up screening enough to keep out "bad dudes", then there's no reason for Trump's ban. Trump has already ramped up screening [1]; either it was enough or it wasn't. If it was enough, there's no reason for the ban. If it wasn't enough, Trump wasn't doing enough to protect the USA. Which is it?

A common talking points from Trump fans is "but some of these people can't be vetted because they have no paperwork". Under stringent screening, someone wouldn't be admitted if they can't provide rock solid proof that they won't cause us problems. That's no reason to block a whole country. If ten Yemenis want to come here and nine can't provide rock solid proof of their bona fides but the tenth is a world-famous peace activist who has a speaking tour, Trump's lunkhead ban would keep all of them out. Simply stringent screening would keep the nine out while letting the peace activist come here for his tour. That would be much more defensible than Trump's lunkhead ban: if someone wants to let unknown quantities come here, then Trump could easily undercut them to their supporters. Not so with Trump's lunkhead ban: he's always been on the defensive and he's never been able to intellectually undercut any of his adversaries.

In addition to that, the "I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive" part makes little sense. Trump is saying that applies across the board to those from the travel ban countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen). Let's try this one: "No one who wants to come here from Iran can love the United States and all of its citizens, and no one who wants to come here from Iran will be hardworking and productive". That's what Trump is saying, even if not in such explicit terms. Would any Trump enablers outside of the AltRight care to repeat that claim?

-----
[1] "Trump Administration Orders Tougher Screening of Visa Applicants",
nytimes . com/2017/03/23/us/politics/visa-extreme-vetting-rex-tillerson.html