Bill O'Reilly: Upholding the stoppage of President Trump's immigration order

So, let's cut through all the mumbo-jumbo. It will give you a headache. And let's cut through all the political hackery. Here's what is really happening.

The Trump administration believes that terrorists are nations with no central control can get to the USA in a way that is far too dangerous. Hypothetically, and ISIS killer could board a plane and say, Tripoli, Libya, with a fake passport and fly to Paris, to our flight, change planes, fly onto New York City. Nobody in Libya will prevent that man. So, he would arrive here with a decent chance of entry.

Therefore, the President wants to impose stronger security oversight on nations like Libya and six others that are essentially in chaos. Federal Law seems to favor the President. Section 212 states, quote, "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens," unquote.

The law seems pretty clear. So, President Trump suspended immigration in seven countries for 90 days. For Syria, he also stopped refugees from entering until further notice. Enter the states of Minnesota and Washington, where the attorneys general challenged the travel ban, saying it harmed individuals and businesses and was unconstitutional because it targeted Muslims.

Federal judge in Washington then blocked President Trump's order. And just two hours ago, a federal appeals court upheld the block unanimously. Why? The three appeals court judges basically ruled that there is no urgency to stop travel from the seven countries and that there are strong arguments on both sides of the question that should be reviewed by the courts. The judges also ruled that no irreparable injury would be caused by a state of the President's order.

And that the court should eventually decide whether the order is constitutional. The judge is basically saying more legal vetting is needed of the terrorist vetting plan. "Talking Points" believes there is more than a little political motivation in this case. No question, Minnesota and Washington State took the action because of the liberal politics. They believe President Trump is anti-Muslim. As to the appeals court, it is impossible to say with certainty what motivated their decision.

If you take them at their word, they simply want more legal hearings on the matter. President Trump says the decision to block is purely political, that his Justice Department will take it to the Supreme Court. I say, good, good. Let's see if Federal Law, as written, and which is pretty clear means anything anymore. Let's see.

In the meantime, anyone coming here from the seven nations cited by President Trump can expect a substantial weight at the airport.

And that is "The Memo".