Skip to main content

For a so-called emergency measure brought in by the Trump administration in its first days in power, the travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries is proving to be a farce.

As a candidate, Donald Trump played to fears of a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists. But his incendiary language on the stump, in which he once called for a "complete shutdown" of Muslims coming to America until the government "can figure out what is going on," conflated the actions of extremists with an entire religion.

His words as a candidate prompted a number of lower courts to block his presidential executive orders creating a limited ban, on the grounds the ban was aimed at a specific religion.

Story continues below advertisement

Watch: U.S. Supreme Court revives parts of Trump travel ban

Read more: Liberals waiting for more details on Trump's immigration ban decision

Now the U.S. Supreme Court says it will hear the government's appeal of the lower-court rulings, and that the ban can be enforced in the meantime for travellers who don't have a "bona fide" relationship with the United States. People with families there, or who go for work or school, will still be allowed in.

But here's the farcical part: The Supreme Court will only hear the case in October – because the government didn't ask it to move faster. That's strange, because Mr. Trump insisted in January that a 60-day travel ban was urgently needed so that the government could examine its anti-terrorist screening and vetting procedures. That was six months ago. Why hasn't the review been done?

And why isn't Mr. Trump in a hurry? Quick answer: The reality-TV president prefers the drama of a long fight, co-starring a court system he loves to demonize, to the chance for a quick resolution. There is no urgency, and there never was. There is only Mr. Trump playing to his audience, the consequences be damned.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies