Executive order: Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the united states



I thought I would post this. It is the first time I’ve actually seen the text of the executive order… Which parts of the order do people find so offensive? Can you list them here please?

God bless,


I’m no scholar regarding such things, but it seems to me inoffensive to anyone who doesn’t simply choose to so regard it.


No, it’s not offensive. Even the Pope says that sovereign countries have the right to protect their borders especially against the threat of terrorism.

People who find that offensive are confused with the right of the country to defend itself and their hatred of Trump who won the election and deprived them of a first female President of the US.


Thanks for your responses.

I just finished reading the order through. It isn’t long. Does anyone know which parts of the order caused the judge to suspend it?

I can see that section 5b basically prioritizes immigration to non-muslims over mustlims. Which is good for Christian minorities in particular, and I’m happy about that. 5c specifically targets Syrian refuges. Which, given its proximity to ISIS… does not seem like a bad idea… although I feel bad for those who are truly trying to get away from that craziness…

Any help would be appreciated. I’ll continue to do research myself.

God bless,


Actually, there are Muslim minority groups that are being persecuted, that will benefit from Trump’s EO. Like Christians, they were overlooked in the past for refugee slots.

The grounds of the challenge are that businesses in several states are being harmed by the EO and thus the State AGs have standing to sue the Feds against the EO. I guess, anything the Feds do that’s bad for business can be challenged.


I believe it is purely political as is the constant misrepresentation of the EO as a “muslim ban”


Sure. More than glad to help. I’ve even included the ruling that you can also read.

Judge Robart had to decide how likely it was that the states of Washington and Minnesota would succeed at a later date. He decided in his view more likely than not.

And that those states would be suffering irreparable harm if the ban continued in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.

He questioned Department of Justice lawyer Michelle Bennett, who was representing the Trump administration, asking, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11?”

The Trump Administration had no answer.

The judge answered for them.

“The answer to that is none, as best I can tell,” said the judge.

And thus he found the EO was grounded more in fiction than in fact.



Hope that helps!


I think that citing economic activity will be affected is flimsey. Is there any documentation for this?


Judge Robart was appointed by the previous Republican president and the 3 judges on the appeals court panel which is now considering the case were chosen randomly. I believe in the case, DJT’s own statements during the campaign have been used against him.


Are you referring to the open conversation Rudy Guiliani had with Donald Trump?


No, the fact that this is in court.


Thanks Sy Noe for the link, but I couldn’t see the text of the ruling. I did find the complaint here though: documentcloud.org/documents/3442611-Amended-Trump-Complaint.html

So the case seems to be that companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Expedia, and Star Bucks would suffer because if their existing employees were to leave the country, say to go to Canada on a business trip, they would be denied re-entry. Many other scenarios like this are listed for families who had recently settled. They could not visit family in Canada, or their eldest child who was still in the refuge camp would not be able to rejoin the family.

The allegations section IV is interesting. It is based on the comment he made before he was elected.

Then section VI states that the EO is a violation of the first amendment - Equal Protection.
Then section VII states that the EO is a violation of the first amendment - Establishment clause
… wow - it goes on an on!

God bless,


You might find an interesting perspective here:


Quite frankly, I think it’s frightening that a judge could even issue such a ruling.:eek:
If this is allowed to stand, and I just don’t see how it can on any measure, it would be a travesty.

Doesn’t matter if you like Coulter or not, her points are spot on regarding this issue.


I couldn’t see the text of the ruling either at first but then it eventually loaded. It was 7 pgs. But you’re welcome. We’ll have to wait and see how it all goes. If I’m not mistaken, I thought I heard it could still go on quite awhile. That it’s even possible if the randomly selected 3-judge appeals court panel upholds Judge Robart’s decision, then if/when it gets to the SCOTUS, they could just toss it back to a lower court to be argued on its merits. And in that scenario, the ban would not be in effect during that time. Or I suppose if the appeals panel overturns Judge Robart, the SCOTUS could then just let the ban stand. And other scenarios. Will be interesting.

God bless you too!


It is scary.

[quote=]***Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole. *** Nothing Trump does will be met with such massive resistance as his immigration policies.

The left used to attack America by spying for Stalin, aiding our enemies, murdering cops and blowing up buildings. But, then liberals realized, it’s so much more effective to just do away with America altogether!




I don’t see anything offensive about this executive order.


Listen to someone who is in Iraq right now. 3 1/2 minutes will shed some light.



Agreed!! God Bless, Memaw


I think you and others fail to understand that the judiciary is a coequal branch of government.

Coulter’s article was vile and vulgar. Lamenting the inability to deport United States citizens and calling the judge in question a ****-ant. As if it’s a judge’s job to goose step to the orders of the President.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.