If Courts Rule Against Trump's Travel Ban, We've Got a Problem

Many suspect a long, drawn-out battle in the courts over Trump's travel ban.  A battle that may go all the way to the Supreme Court.  However, if Trump's ban is struck down, we have an even bigger problem with our "visa" program, which also restricts many citizens from entering the country.

Except in the case of Canada and 38 countries with a "visa waiver" status, any citizen of another country wishing to enter the U.S. is required to obtain a visa for work, education, and tourism from the U.S. Embassy in their country, as noted in this statement from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website:

"A foreign national or alien entering the U.S. is generally required to present a passport and valid visa issued by a U.S. Consular Official, unless they are a citizen of a country eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, or are a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. or a citizen of Canada."

Even in the case of those countries issuing a "visa waiver",  the stay is limited to 90 days; and you must present a valid passport from your country of origin to travel into and around the United States.

In terms of shutting down visa access, the State Department's website says this:

"U.S. Embassies and Consulates are sometimes forced to limit or at times suspend visa services because of natural disasters, civil unrest, war and/or security concerns, among other reasons. The list below notes the U.S. Embassies and Consulates that currently provide limited visa services, locations where visa services are suspended, and countries that do not have embassies or consulates."

So, basically, Trump isn't doing anything that hasn't been within the purview of the U.S. for years.  Those who say what Trump is doing is unconstitutional or outside the law should take a good look at those existing laws.  For example, if a person is a citizen of Belarus, Minsk, you can only receive a visa for the following reasons:

"Although full visa services are suspended until further notice, U.S. Embassy Minsk processes nonimmigrant visa applications for the following limited categories: A visas for diplomats and government officials; G visas for employees and representatives to international organizations; B visas for relatives of Belarusian diplomats serving at Belarusian diplomatic missions in the United States; visas for family and medical emergencies requiring urgent travel; visas for U.S. Government-sponsored travel and programs; and visas for senior citizens, 70 years of age and older. Review the U.S. Embassy Minsk website for more information. "

Last I checked, Belarus is not an Arab country and not covered under Trump's ban.

Further, Section 212(f) of the 1952 Nationality and Immigration Act states this:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Obviously the whole travel ban confusion has more to do with politics and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" than reality.

References:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Entering the U.S. - Documents required for Foreign Nationals (International Travelers): https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/572/~/entering-the-u.s.---documents-required-for-foreign-nationals-(international

U.S. Department of State: Countries with Limited or No U.S. Visa Services: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/countries-with-limited-or-no-u-s--visa-services.html

The Past Six Presidents Have All Used The Executive Power To Block Certain Classes Of Immigrants: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/the-past-six-presidents-have-all-used-executive-power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/

Court: Obama Loses Flat-Roofed Housing Discrimination Claim

Back in June, I wrote a blog  entitled: 'Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before'.  In it, I pointed out that, in previous Administrations, the average win rate in the courts was about 70%.  Nearly the opposite has happened under President Obama, with his Administration losing two-thirds of the cases that go to court.

The reason for this is simple.  Obama and his ideologically driven people seem to think they can take existing laws and interpret them in ways that were never intended by Congress.  In other words, create new legislation through reinterpretation; thus, bypassing Congress completely.

Obama's latest loss had to do with his Housing and Urban Development's reinterpretation of the federal Fair Housing Act.  They argued that Allstate Insurance, by refusing to insure flat-roofed houses, was practicing discrimination because they were disproportionately not insuring minorities since a higher percentage of those homes were owned by minorities.

First of all, the intent of the the Fair Housing Act was to prevent intentional and widespread discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or religion when someone was either buying  or trying to finance a home.  But, Allstate's supposed discrimination was not intentional.  It was a business decision based on the fact that flat-roofed homes carry an inherently high insurance risk.  Flat roofs leak more frequently than other types.  As a result, they have higher incidents of water damage, mildew and mold.  Often, the damage is inside walls resulting in the entire wall being replaced.  They may also sag and, as a consequence, have a high rate of collapse after extremely heavy rain and snow fall.  Surprisingly, they also have a higher burglary risk. As a result, they have low market values because most people don't want to deal with all the problems, and the high cost of insuring and/or  maintaining a flat roof.

So, the unreasonableness of this racial bias claim was why a U.S. District Judge had no other choice to side with Allstate against Obama.  This is, as noted before, very typical. For example, the Obama Administration is now trying to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act in order to control wells, ponds and marshes; even on private lands.  But, the intention of the Clean Water Act was to only have federal environmental say over navigable waters.  Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.  So, I am quite sure that this, too, will wind up in our courts with another smack down by Obama's out-of-control regulations.

References:

Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/06/obama-is-losing-in-courts-like-never.html

Court rejects Obama housing bias rule as 'wishful thinking': http://news.yahoo.com/u-court-rejects-obama-housing-bias-rule-wishful-215306404.html

If your house has a flat roof, or even if some of its roof is flat, it can complicate insurance arrangements: http://www.gocompare.com/home-insurance/flat-roof-home-insurance/

Clean Water Act Expansion Draws Ire From GOP As White House Prepares To Regulate Waterways: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/clean-water-act-expansion_n_5088723.html