The Ring of Fire
@theringoffire·1.4M subscribers·27K videos
Trump’s Muslim Ban Was Never About National Security
Posted
July 2, 2018
Views
15,118
Likes
696
Comments
169
Engagement
5.72%
July 2, 2018
15,118
696
169
5.72%
Every word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.
Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line
See what was published immediately before and after this episode.
7:31Now PlayingThe Supreme Court this week upheld Trump’s travel ban, with the conservative Court majority saying that the ban is here to stay. Ring of Fire's Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss this.
Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!
Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel
Be sociable! Follow us on:
Follow more of our stories at
Subscribe to our podcast
The Supreme Court this week upheld Trumps travel ban with the conservative court majority saying that the ban is here to stay and, you know what, it is. Now, let's back up. We had this discussion when this first happened. Right?
Yeah.
It was like a year and a half ago. I don't know. It seemed like a long time ago. You and I said, we concluded that this ban was going to be held constitutional. I remember being on the air saying and then people, we got covered up with emails saying how could you say that? Well, the reason we could say that is because we understood how much flexibility a president has with an executive order where you're talking about national security. It falls within, you know, we've talked about this notion of police powers. This is very strong and they never ... Nobody seemed to get that. The libs were saying well, this is going to be overturned, it's just a matter of time. We knew this was going to happen.
Yeah. Just to point out to people too, it's not because we agree on that on the merits and we think it's good.
No. I don't agree at all.
It is because obviously with this conservative majority on the Supreme Court, there's no way regardless of what the lower courts do, it was going to make it there and it was going to get upheld. But too, yeah, the power that the president does have while it's being pushed to the extreme, something like this is unfortunately within his power. Now, that's just the can he or can he not do this. Let's talk about the merits of it. If this about national security, we're banning people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen who have not done a single thing over here to Americans to harm them. If you want to protect American citizens ...
How about Saudi Arabia?
Exactly. This was not, even though he argued it was, this wasn't really about national security. Because if it were, if this was about treating human beings with decency, we would be going after Saudi Arabia on every possible front.
Here's what and I think a lot of people missed what was happening when this came about. The EU was saying to the entire EU, all the European nations, you're going to have to let in ... You're just going to have to permit this immigration flow. That was part of the deal. As an EU country, you must do this. Greece, Spain, Italy, Belgium, all these countries all of a sudden seeing this huge influx of Syrians. African and Syrian primarily. What he did was he picked up on that. He picked up that that was causing a lot of problems politically for people like Merkel and May and people who are in leadership over in Europe and he said I'm going to use that. I'm going to say that's not going to happen here.
Well, first of all, the EU's proclamation that you must take these immigrations had no impact on us anyway.
Right.
The UN, maybe. UN negotiation, you say well we'll take in 10,000, 20,000 Syrians or immigrants that are justified to come into this country. The point being it wasn't really about national security. It was about a political agenda that again Democrats were out maneuvered on. He knew he was going to win this. Any constitutional lawyer worth their weight would've said yeah you're going to win this. He set the fight up. I don't want happen in the US what's happening in Italy and France and Switzerland or Sweden. I don't want that happening in the US. We're not part of all that. We're going to be different. This was what he set up and the other side of it was if you remember you've heard the term America first.
Yeah.
We've heard it ad nauseam. What is that? America first is again, it's a brand. Just like Trump's brand is we're not going to allow immigration in and that's really what this was all about. It was all about ... It's part of the immigration narrative. We've been sitting here watching. The average person watching all this has not paid attention to how strong the America first brand is becoming. Look at South Carolina last week. Was it this week or last week? Look at South Carolina.
Sentinel Indexing in Progress
Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.
All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.
