This letter is in response to those who criticize the court’s decision to block the Muslim travel ban, or who praise the ban.

To the argument on President Obama’s immigration restrictions: The difference is that Obama’s was narrowly tailored and rationally related to a legitimate interest; it was constitutional. Trump’s was all-encompassing, including refugees. Limiting immigration and fighting terrorism are important, but a blanket ban is not rationally related to that goal.

Furthermore, Trump’s order created chaos. People who held green cards were kept from entering the country. Children were detained away from parents. These are violations of due process, which all people, the Supreme Court decided, are entitled to.

The ban has not been taken to court; the state of Washington filed only a temporary restraining order.

The appellate court said “the government has not shown that the executive order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.”

You don’t get to ignore the Constitution when it is inconvenient.

Additionally, the ban prioritizes refugees who are of minority religions in their countries, aka not Muslims. Yet we say that here in America we believe in the freedom of religion?

In a 1790 letter to the Hebrew congregations of Newport, New Jersey, President George Washington wrote: “For happily the government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…”

Whether it is an issue of due process or the freedom of religion, you don’t get to ignore the Constitution. It protects your rights just as much as it protects the rights of those who don’t pray or look like you.

Christina Finley

Sammamish