Originally Posted by Guest

1. California has not imposed a ban. As someone said earlier, it is more of a boycott. California is not stopping anyone from traveling to Kansas nor is it stopping anyone from coming to California from Kansas. It is denying its state colleges and universities from competing at Kansas colleges that allow on-campus clubs to deny participation by LGBTQ people. Private colleges are not stopped. Individual athletes are not stopped. Kansas has a right to its laws. California has the right to not condone those laws. California has the legal right to determine where students legally representing state schools can go. So, a student on UCLA's debate team, traveling as a member of the team would not be allowed to participate in a debate at Kansas State but a student attending a debate as an individual (not representing UCLA) would be free to go or not.

2. A President is allowed to put into place travel bans as needed. However, a President cannot break a Constitutional law to do so. To create a travel ban that focuses on a specific religion rather than a region is unconstitutional. Trump has said more than once that he would put into effect a travel ban against Muslims. When he signed the first Executive Order he specifically said that Christians from these countries would be given priority. Thus, he basically reiterated his campaign rhetoric against Muslims. It is Trump's mouth that has stopped him from getting a travel ban into effect.

I'd say comparing Trump's attempted ban and California's boycott is like comparing apples and oranges.

Red