No matter how many times President Donald Trump tries to re-write his ban on travel to the United States for citizens of certain nations, he can’t change the effort’s origin: his campaign pledge to keep Muslims out of the United States. He can claim it is the product of a security review. He can add a nation that sends practically no one to the U.S. in the first place or bar a handful of people from another. But religious discrimination remains at its root.
This week a federal judge in Hawaii said as much when he struck down most of Mr. Trump’s third revision of an executive order originally issued in January that would have restricted travel to the U.S. by citizens of predominantly Muslim countries. The first two orders were both blocked by the courts on the grounds that they unlawfully discriminated against individuals based on their nationality or religion. On Tuesday, District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson concluded that Mr. Trump’s latest effort likewise “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.” On Wednesday, a federal district judge in Maryland, Theodore D. Chuang, blocked the order’s application to anyone with a bona fide relationship with someone in the United States on the same grounds, calling the third order an “inextricable re-animation of the twice-enjoined Muslim ban.”
A ban on Muslims by any other name is still a Muslim ban because, Judge Watson wrote, “it plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a way that violates “the founding principles of this Nation.”
There was never much doubt about what the administration was trying to achieve through the president’s order. Mr. Trump made it crystal clear in 2015 that one of his first official acts as president would be to impose a “total ban” on Muslim immigration to this country. Though the White House has since tried to tone that down and reframe the issue in terms of tighter border controls and national security, it’s obvious Mr. Trump is obsessed with fulfilling that early campaign pledge, which is red meat to his base.
The president undoubtedly is betting the Supreme Court eventually will take up the matter and rule in his favor given that Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, now sits on the bench. But even if the high court somehow finds a way to declare the president’s actions legally justified, that won’t make them morally right. Americans have long prided themselves on living in an open society that welcomes the contributions of visitors from around the world. Shutting the door against people simply because of their religious beliefs or where they were born ought to be anathema to anyone who honors the global invitation engraved on the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
In a statement, the White House lashed out against Judge Watson’s order, saying the ban was based on an “extensive worldwide security review” by the Department of of Homeland Security, and that the court’s action “undercuts the President’s efforts to keep the American people safe and enforce minimum security for entry into the United States.” Yet Judge Watson found that the administration had failed to present any evidence of a link between a person’s nationality and the potential threat they posed. “The categorical restrictions on entire populations of men, women, and children, based upon nationality, are a poor fit for the issues regarding the sharing of public safety and terrorism-related information,” he wrote. In other words, if the goal is to keep Americans safe from terrorist attack, turning people away at the border because of their nationality or religion is one of the least effective things we can do.
Mr. Trump may never appreciate that hard truth, however. His instinct is always to blame someone else, and “Muslims” as a group are an easy target that relieves him of the obligation of thinking through the long-term consequences of his impulsive policy choices. The president’s “Muslim ban” was an absurdity from the start, and in a healthy body politic it never would have been allowed to take root in any serious national conservation about terrorism. But these are not normal times. We’re heartened by the judicial restraints the courts have so far managed to impose on the president’s power to arbitrarily determine who can and cannot legally enter the country. But we also recognize those restraints may only be temporary. The ultimate protector of American values lies in the people electing representatives who will uphold them.
Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.
Arizona Senator Jeff Flake announced on Tuesday he will not seek reelection when his term in the  is up next year, citing issues within the United States Republican Party and with President Donald Trump, whose behavior he called "reckless, outrageous, and undignified." The Trump administration said Flake had poor support among his constituency.

In a speech on the floor of the Senate, Flake said, "The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters — the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and," he said, "I believe, profoundly misguided." He later added on CNN's '''', "It's difficult to move forward in a Republican primary if you have been critical of any of the behavior that's gone on... We Republicans certainly can't countenance that kind of behavior. We ought to stand up and say 'This is not right. This is not us. This is not conservative.' "
Senator Jeff Flake in 2016.
"Based on the lack of support he has from the people of Arizona, retirement's probably a good move,"   told the media. Recent polls showed Flake has limited popularity with Republicans in Arizona.

Last year President Trump told other Arizona politicians he planned to personally spend US$10 million to see that Flake did not win the Republican primary, the intra-party election that names the party's official candidate. About two months ago Trump tweeted in support of Flake's rival for the primary nod, , "Great to see that Dr. Kelli Ward is running against Flake Jeff Flake, who is WEAK on borders, crime and a non-factor in Senate. He's toxic!"

Republican Senators  and , who have also been critical of President Trump, stood and clapped at the end of Flake's floor speech. Corker later called Flake a "real conservative." Republican Senator  of Maine described herself as deeply disappointed by Flake's decision. Republican Senator  and  Senator  referred to it as "sad" and "depressing."

Kaine commented, "When someone as good and decent a person as Jeff Flake does not think he can continue in the body, it's a very tragic day for the institution."

Flake has recently published a book, ''Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle'', in which he criticizes what he sees as Trump's negative effect on the tone of United States politics. Politically, Flake has differed from President Trump on trade and immigration, specifically the  and the , with Flake in favor of both agreements and Trump against.  Flake also co-authored a 2013 law that would have given undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship if it had passed. Trump is in the early stages of building a wall on the U.S.– border in an attempt to prevent people from entering the U.S. illegally and has issued three executive orders limiting immigration from specific countries, though these were later blocked.

United States senators serve six-year terms.  One third of the Senate is elected or reelected every two years.



== Sources == 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*




CAT:United StatesCAT:Politics and conflictsCAT:ElectionsCAT:Republican Party (United States)CAT:ArizonaCAT:Donald Trump