Trump campaign deletes statement on Muslim ban after reporter asks about it
- Author: Zachary Reyes May 22, 2017,
May 22, 2017, 19:16
Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" during a rally in SC, an idea swiftly condemned by his rival GOP ca.
As the Fourth Circuit heard arguments Monday on a challenge to President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, the central question appeared to be whether the president's past anti-Muslim statements effectively doom the controversial policy.
Justice Department lawyers arguing on behalf of the Trump administration must make the case that the decree is necessary to ensure national security - and that it does not amount to the so-called Muslim ban Trump had threatened to impose while running for office.
The lawyer cited Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric as demonstrating "animus" thus delegitimizing the order. Citizens from the three most populous Muslim majority countries in the world are still free to travel to the US, making the idea of a "Muslim ban" ridiculous.
According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, through late March 763 new civil immigration lawsuits have been filed in dispute of matters resulting from the executive order. The previous visa ban had included Iraq, but it is no longer on the list because of its efforts against ISIS. Still, a federal judge in Maryland blocked part of it and another federal judge in Hawaii placed a nationwide injunction on the whole order.
Trump issued the revised travel ban March 6, after suffering repeated legal losses over the first ban.
The challengers said Trump's order violated federal immigration law and a section of the US Constitution's First Amendment barring the government from favouring or disfavouring a particular religion.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall told the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday that the court should not second-guess the president's national security decisions because of comments made on the campaign trail. His ruling also addressed components within the travel ban that Chuang's didn't, like Trump's ban on refugees.
It's the first time Mr. Trump's revised executive order has reached an appeals court. In order to fulfill its stated objective on national security, he argued, it would have applied to a different set of countries than those targeted by the order. "You just don't want to answer the question whether this order on its face is legitimate", Niemeyer said.
But liberal judges are desperately casting about for legal reasoning that would allow them to prevent the travel ban from going into effect. "The question is, what is the goal of this policy?" Jadwat asked. He noted that when Trump signed the order, he read aloud its title referring to "foreign terrorist entry" and then added, "We all know what that means".
Spicer acknowledged that Trump's campaign website did call for a Muslim ban, but maintained this was not the administration's aim.
However, it turned out later on that the remarks had been removed from the website shortly before the hearing began.
Omar C. Jadwat, with the American Civil Liberties Union, contends the order had a religious goal that violated the establishment clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution, which bars establishment of religion.
What about a president's statements in a college speech, or to a business group decades ago, or in a prior campaign, Niemeyer asked.