Travel Ban Unconstitutional? Well, Democrats Did It, Too.

Amid a furor over President Trump’s temporary ban on immigrants and refugees from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it’s worth taking a brief look back at the historic precedence for such a move.

Although almost no one mentions it, two Democratic presidents have done the exact same thing in the modern era, both times for much longer periods.

After the 2009 discovery that two al Qaeda terrorists were living as refugees in Bowling Green, Ky., President Obama took action. “As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets,” ABC New reported in 2013. “One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.”

Weren’t we at war with Iraq? Are we currently at war with these 7 countries?

Does that matter in your mind? If so, why?

Generally, when countries are at war, additional scrutiny of citizens from the enemy country is warranted. Historically, this is how it has worked for all of human history.

If we are going to use something other than that to put blanket bans in place, we should ban a lot of other countries while we are at it. Let’s ban all countries in the EU, they let people in from the Middle East. Let’s ban all Russians, they invaded the Ukraine. Let’s ban all Chinese, they have been taking over islands in the Pacific. Let’s ban Pakistanis, they harbored Al-Qaeda, let’s ban Cubans, they are communists, etc.

In 2009? There was fighting in Iraq, but were we at war with Iraq?

Were we at war with Iran in 1979 when Carter banned immigration?

Is that relevant? Clearly it didn’t matter to Carter.

Iran had attacked our embassy, thereby declaring war on the US. Clearly it did matter to Carter.

Obama was continuing the war begun by Bush.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’d say the war was started by someone besides GWB. It was a war against terrorists and those that harbor them, and it was started because we were attacked on our own soil. The fact that it went into Iraq was all of a piece, but Bush didn’t just go start trouble in the sandbox.

Okay, the Iraqis started that war. But there was a war in progress in 2009.

And attacks on the US and other countries have ties to countries on the list. Those attacks don’t matter?

Obama was continuing the war …

What war? The Iraq government took power in 2006. Saddam Hussein was hanged in 2006. The US was not at war with Iraq in 2009. There was fighting, but it was not a war with Iraq.

So why are we still there? Why are we granting soldiers Veteran status if we aren’t at war?

Helping the Iraqi government with an insurgency. The war was no longer against Iraq, but against those who would overthrow the Iraqi government.

And we grant soldiers veteran status who never served in a combat zone. What’s your point?

But only if there is a war going on while they are serving.

BTW, Glad to know the Iraqi war ended in 2006. My cousin will be thrilled to know he wasn’t in a war zone after that. As will my niece and nephew.

Not true. From the VA:
By statute, a veteran is defined as a “person who served in
the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under
conditions other than dishonorable.”

I never said there wasn’t a war. I said there wasn’t a war with Iraq. So if it is OK for Obama to ban immigrants from Iraq when we weren’t at war with Iraq, why is it wrong for Trump to ban immigrants from Iraq and other nations with which we aren’t at war?

Why isn’t Saudi, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, or Indonesia on the list? There are predominately Muslim countries.

Those aren’t such hotbeds of terrorism. Not saying they can’t spring forth a batch of bad men, but they aren’t the chief offenders at this time.

Saudi has a number of shall we say ties with your nation. Turkey is a nation I imagine Donald would not wish to alienate and might be looking at as potential ally. Bangladesh is perceived as fairly moderate and indeed exists in part because of splitting from Pakistan over issues such as been part of a state governed on a religious basis.

Those who helped us should have been brought back to the US immediately, with no delay. There are still interpreters and translators in Afghanistan as well. This was a completely dishonorable thing for us to do: they risked their lives to help us, we promised as part of their compensation to bring them here, but then we abandoned them. Something an EO would have been a good thing to fix.


Personally, I think that if he was going to do this right, he should have included more countries.

Pakistan and Saudi are not hotbeds of terrorism? That’s news to me. The majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Pakistan harboured bin Laden and the Taliban. I feel it’s odd that Afghanistan didn’t make the list either.

Many of those detained were permanent residents that have already been vetted.

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