The logic of progressive thinking is sometimes so convoluted, it is often possible to find it turning on itself, interrupting its path toward whatever nirvana they seek in a perfect world. Case in point: the argument against the temporary travel ban of certain nationalities and travelers through those nations.
It is an argument of rights. Most progressives — not all, it must be admitted, as will follow shortly — assume without legal backing, by the way, that anyone has a right to travel to the United States, regardless of nationality and condition; particularly refugees. The law says otherwise in both the 14thamendment as well as U.S. Code Title 8, § 1182, (3)(A),(B),(C), among others.
Here’s a valid example of the logic interrupt: If health care is a right, as progressives so doggedly insist, where was their protest when the order was given to prevent travel to the U.S? You say they did protest? To be critically factual, a few did protest but it was very few; the great majority of progressives remained silent.
If health care is a right, as progressives claim, then relative health of persons is a protected class and they should not be restricted in travel. Then, progressives might have a logical claim against the restriction of citizens of, and travelers through any nation. (Might,because there are still the statutes noted above.)
However, the fact is, health care is not a right. As I have argued before, if health was a right, then persons who are at risk of death due to need of an organ transplant would have the organs available to save their lives. But they don’t always have them, do they? Progressives correctly rankle at the thought of ending one person’s life to provide the needed organ for another.
This logic is interrupted, as well, in spite of the relative innocence of the parties involved, when applied to the practice of abortion, but that’s an interrupt of a different story. At the same time, most progressives oppose the execution of criminals guilty of some capital crimes. See; convoluted.
In a purely logical world, it would follow that a temporary restriction against citizens of, and travelers through nations that do not share proper vetting information with the United States to confirm the legal passage into the U.S. is legal and valid, according to the statutes noted above, not to mention a consistent logic.
Oh, wait a minute. Did you think I was talking about the travel ban imposed by President Trump earlier this year due the Covid-19 pandemic? Oh, silly me! I was not specific. I speak of another travel ban; an earlier travel ban; a ban imposed on seven nations identified by President Obama, not that they were nations at random, or because their citizens are usually Muslim, or that nations like Saudi Arabia, or Egypt were not selected even though we have had terrorists on our shores from these nations. I speak of the ban imposed for all citizens of, and travelers through certain West African nations without extreme vetting of health condition during the ebola crisis of 2104. Remeber that crisis, which had little protest from progressives?
It follows that progressive logic is interrupted logic; it does not hold in all cases, and, in fact, holds only in very few cases. In other cases, it is completely forgotten, conveniently.