ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: Travel ban tip of a larger immigration mess

| Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
AP
AP

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Trump an early Christmas gift on Monday by upholding the administration's enforcement of a travel ban to the United States by residents from six primarily Muslim countries while legal challenges against it proceed through the appellate courts.

Of course, this legal wrangle could have been avoided had the president and Congress come to terms at the start of Mr. Trump's term on a travel policy as part of a larger, sorely needed immigration overhaul.

The ban applies to travelers from Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Chad and, contrary to common assumptions, it is not absolute. Travelers from the listed countries are allowed in the U.S. if they can show a relationship with close family members here.

Two federal appellate courts are scheduled to hear arguments on the legality of the ban. Previously, lower courts have ruled that travelers from the aforementioned countries have a “bona fide” claim to enter the U.S.

But whereas the president and congressional leaders receive regular classified briefings about threats to the U.S., the federal judiciary does not.

A speedy resolution by the appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and formally decide the issue in its current term.

Rightfully, travel policies, children of illegal aliens and federal enforcement of the law in so-called “sanctuary cities” should be part of a broader immigration overhaul. Such matters, especially as they apply to national security, would be better legislated than continually litigated.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.