Just three days after the Department of Justice attempted to resuscitate President Trump’s revised travel ban by appealing to the 9th Circuit court, a 15-state coalition filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the president’s constitutional right to decide the country’s immigration law. They are in direct opposition to the Hawaiian court’s “flawed” interpretation of the executive order

“The president’s revised immigration order is constitutional, lawful, addresses the 9th Circuit’s concerns and is a vital step in securing our borders,” argued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, one of the brief’s authors. “A temporary pause in the national refugee program will give the government time to review and determine how we can improve the screening process for foreign nationals seeking to enter the U.S. from six countries designated as ‘countries of concern’.”

“President Trump’s revised immigration order is necessary to protect the homeland from those who wish us harm.”

Rampant terror attacks are upsetting peace across the world. Many people no longer feel safe in their own homes. Many of the migrants who’ve streamed into the West in recent years have come for nefarious purposes. Still, others will be seduced into the underworld by ISIS proselytizers. These men and women are fleeing from countries with fractured governments. It’s nearly impossible to adequately screen them.

“The Order applies to all nationals of the listed countries, and all refugees from any country, regardless of anyone’s religion …,” attorney’s for the Department of Justice wrote in last Friday’s opening brief. “To be sure, this Order has been the subject of heated debate. But the precedent set by this case will long transcend this order, this president, and this constitutional moment. The decision below openly disagrees with and enjoins the president’s national-security judgment.”

The revised travel ban temporarily blocked nationals of six troubled countries from entering the U.S. While it clearly represented a toughened stance on immigration, the ban’s strict measures were born from common sense rather than malice. The 15 states that grouped together to defend the order believe that it’s absolutely necessary for security.

“Unregulated, unvetted travel is not a universal privilege, especially when national security is at stake,” John F. Kelly, the homeland security secretary, said in March.

The initial iteration of the travel ban was poorly implemented, and the resulting tumult might have proved ruinous for Trump’s budding reputation. He rebounded quickly, however, and the revised ban is a clear improvement.

“We don’t want them here,” Trump once said of Islamic terrorists. “We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas. We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country, and love deeply our people.”

The legality of Trump’s travel ban is bolstered by the Plenary Doctrine, which grants the president expansive power to control immigration. According to The Week, the underlying rational supporting to the doctrine is that “in order to protect itself, the government of a sovereign nation like America must be able to exclude any foreigner from its soil without constitutional objections from courts. The only ‘rights’ foreigners are entitled to when it comes to their ability to enter or stay in the country are those that the political branches decide to extend to them. So, actions that might be illicit when applied to citizens are unobjectionable when it comes to foreigners, especially those not living in the United States.”

Muslim radicals don’t have the right to resettle in the U.S. Living conditions in the six countries mentioned in the travel ban, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Iran, and Syria, have disintegrated so badly that customs agents struggle to verify their identities.

ISIS’s stated goal is to destroy America. We cannot survive with open borders. Advanced, extensive screenings are the only tools we have to catch radical Islamists before they bury themselves within the country.

“On the basis of negotiations that have taken place between the government of Iraq and the U.S. Department of State in the last month, Iraq will increase cooperation with the U.S. government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States,” homeland security officials wrote in a prepared statement.

Iraq’s initial inclusion on the travel ban incited much of the initial controversy. Iraqi citizens are currently engaged in a fierce battle against ISIS alongside American soldiers. The revised order respects their service, while still requiring the Iraqi government to participate in screening its citizens.

“We cannot fault the president for being politically incorrect, but we do fault him for being constitutionally incorrect,” said Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, complaining that the revised ban is just a “watered down” version of the original, messy order.

Hawaii led the charge in blocking the order. The political move has granted fame and airtime to Chin, but regular Americans are suffering as a result. Immigration policy is created to help and protect, not to be cruel.