Hawaiian federal judge puts Trump’s travel ban on hold

With loving and enthused huzzahs from everyone on the Leftist bank.

From SacBee.com:

The Latest: Judge in Hawaii puts Trump’s travel ban on hold

by the Associated Press

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling Wednesday after hearing arguments on Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban.

His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.

More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments Wednesday about whether it should be put into practice.

Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

The state also says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

Roughly the same argument as before. Judges don’t seem to understand the law, as federal Judge Derrick Watson may be educated but fails to grasp the immediacy and plain text of 8 USC 1182, as well as Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787. He also takes not into consideration the actions of Mr Obama in 2011 and 2015, as well as the immigration drought between roughly 1921/1924 to 1965.

8 USC 1182 states:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of 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 or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

4:45 p.m.

A Justice Department attorney is arguing that there’s no need for a judge in Hawaii to issue an emergency restraining order against the revised travel ban issued by President Donald Trump.

Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General said during a hearing Wednesday that plaintiffs have said little about harm from the ban that was not speculative.

He said Hawaii is making generalized allegations.

Wall said if the judge is inclined to issue an injunction, it shouldn’t be nationwide and should be tailored to the claims raised by Hawaii.

There, of course, will be more.

BZ

 

Wisconsin judge interferes with 2nd Trump travel stay

But not nearly to the extent that did Judge Robart in Washington state, and with a fraction of the prior focus on President Trump’s second travel stay, Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States).

From Politico.com:

Revised Trump travel ban suffers first legal blow

by Josh Gerstein

Federal judge in Wisconsin blocks impact on Syrian family as other courts mull broader relief.

President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban executive order suffered its first legal setback Friday as a federal judge blocked the directive’s potential impact on the family of a Syrian refugee living in Wisconsin.

Madison-based U.S. District Court Judge William Conley issued a temporary retraining order at the request of the Syrian man, who is referred to as “John Doe” in court filings. The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said Trump’s new executive order cannot be used to delay the man’s effort to bring his wife and 3-year-old daughter from the wartorn country to the U.S., but is limited to the individuals involved in the case.

As you can see the effect is limited in scope and quite pointedly focuses on one Syrian man’s family.

Do not doubt, however, that every Leftist and sympathetic federal judge aren’t in deep talks at this very moment in an attempt to craft the perfect eliminatory argument.

The major differences between the first and second Trump EO:

  • Iraq is no longer included as a banned country as it will provide extra vetting;
  • Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia are still included in the travel stay;
  • Green Card holders may enter even if from the above listed countries;

Other differences include:

President Trump signed a new travel ban Monday that administration officials said they hope will end legal challenges over the matter by imposing a 90-day ban on the issuance of new visas for citizens of six majority-Muslim nations.

In addition, the nation’s refu­gee program will be suspended for 120 days, and the United States will not accept more than 50,000 refugees in a year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration.

One the most significant unmentioned differences? The absence of national protests. Do we see a tiny crack in the Leftist/anarchist armor?

Judge Napolitano weighs in on President Trump’s second Executive Order:

Surely there will be more to come.

BZ

 

Seattle Judge Robart: won’t issue order against Trump’s new travel stay

[See background material here about President Trump’s first travel stay, with additional excellent insight from Byron York here.]

From the BBC.com:

Trump travel ban: Judge declines to reinstate ruling

A US judge has declined to issue an emergency order banning President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban.

Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation.

The new 90-day ban on citizens of six mostly Muslim nations is due to come into effect on Thursday but has sparked legal action in a number of states.

What’s different this time around?

  • Iraq is no longer included as a banned country as it will provide extra vetting;
  • Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia are still included in the travel stay;
  • Green Card holders may enter even if from the above listed countries;

Leftist states are suing once again, of course, to include Maryland, New York, Oregon, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Washington.

One bit of information you likely did not hear, a video, regarding President Trump’s first travel stay, was from a US Marine recently serving in Iraq.

As you might expect, his video created quite a stir in February, because he dared to ask probably the most important question as yet unasked by the American Media Maggots. Sean Hannity had this response.

Also from FoxNews.com:

Lance Corporal Steven Gern, 42, who worked as a contractor in Iraq starting in 2005, posted his video on February 1, and told Fox News he was evacuated from Iraq the next day because of it.

In the video, Gern said he had spoken to a group of Iraqi men about the travel ban, without getting into specifics. “My simple question was, ‘As an American, if I went out in town right now, would I be welcome?’ And they instantly said, ‘Absolutely not, you would not be welcome.’ And I said, ‘OK, so what would happen if I went out of town?’ And they said the locals would snatch me up and kill me within an hour.”

He states the obvious when he says:

“The Iraqis, in general, have very little respect for any America –regardless of whether you’re a Marine, a contractor, or a civilian—they have very little respect for you,” Gern told Fox News. “The United States pumps more and more money and it’s not appreciated –why don’t we just take care of our own?”

Gern told Fox News he has not had contact with his company, and is concerned about losing his job after posting the video, but felt it was necessary.

The question then becomes: under what legal theory will President Trump’s travel stay be attacked this time? That said, kudos to the Trump administration for continuing their persistence regarding this extremely important issue.

BZ

 

Racist Jorge Ramos: America is “our country”

Meaning: Mexico’s.

That is my opinion.

Univision’s senior journalist Jorge Ramos said that the US is their country — meaning Mexico’snot ours — meaning the rest of America.

From Breitbart.com:

Jorge Ramos: America Is ‘Our Country, Not Theirs’—‘And We Are Not Going to Leave’

by Katie McHugh

Univision senior anchor Jorge Ramos declared on Friday that the United States belongs to Latino migrants, emphatically stating to a Spanish-speaking audience that “it is our country, not theirs.”

Ramos took an unusual tack, pivoting from talk of diversity and togetherness into boasts of conquest. Mass immigration, particularly illegal immigration, was a fait accompli. There is nothing the U.S. can do about it, and they must accept that America is “not their” country and that illegal aliens, particularly Latinos, “are not going to leave,” he said.

“But you know what? This is also our country. Let me repeat this: Our country, not theirs. It is our country. And we are not going to leave. We are nearly 60 million Latinos in the United States,” he continued. “And thanks to us, the United States eats, grows and, as we’ve seen today, sings and dances.”

“So when they attack us, we already know what we are going to do. We are not going to sit down. We will not shut up. And we will not leave. That is what we are going to do,” he added.

Let us not forget the word Hispandering, conjured by GOWPs.

The moderators of, for example, the 8th Demorat debates were the racists Jorge Ramos, Maria Elena Salinas and a token female Caucasoid journalista named Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post, who mostly remained silent.

When those two clear racists sat at a moderator’s panel and pushed agendas specific to only one race — Hispanics (God I hate that word) — and the name of La Raza (translated: The Race, which advocates “reconquista“) even escapes their lips, I know they are racists.

Reverse it: imagine there was a Caucasoid Channel sponsoring the GOP debates and moderators were asking what the candidates could do for whites?

Why are they racist?  Supremely easy to answer: either everyone is equal or no one is equal.

It is a conundrum I had to address at the earliest stages of my career as a law enforcement officer. Either everyone matters, or no one matters. I chose the former philosophy.

There is also La Raza. Translation: “The Race.” Meaning Mexicans. Then there is MEChA.

Can you think of an equally egregious racist statement made on behalf of Caucasoids this week? Any recent week? This year? Last year?

I cannot.

BZ

 

Ninth Circuit upholds Washington judge’s ruling

Above, 9th DCA judges Richard Clifton, William Canby, Michelle Friedland.

The Ninth District Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco has just affirmed the ruling of Judge James Robart in the state of Washington regarding President Trump’s immigrant/refugee travel stay. That means the Trump travel stay has been held as unconstitutional and overturned.

From the NYPost.com:

Federal appeals court rules against Trump’s travel ban

by Bob Fredericks and Daniel Halper

A federal appeals court on Thursday unanimously upheld a judge’s order that slammed the brakes on President Trump’s temporary refugee and immigration ban.

The stunning 3-0 ruling by the 9th Circuit court of Appeals in San Francisco means the travel ban — which caused chaos and massive protests at airports across the US— won’t take effect.

The president responded with a tweet, promising to challenge the ruling.

“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Trump said.

The case will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

The three judges who heard the government’s appeal of the order were Democratic appointees William Canby and Michelle Friedland and GOP appointee Richard Clifton.

On one hand I am surprised it took the 9th quite some time to craft its opinion. On the other hand, the opinion is completely in keeping with the Leftist nature of the court itself.

As you recall, it was lower-court Judge James Robart in the state of Washington who temporarily halted the stay after stating that Washington and Minnesota were likely to win their case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base.

The unanimous decision means that the case either goes to the Supreme Court or back to Robart’s court.

The full text of the Ninth Circuit’s decision can be found here.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian organization that filed an appeals court brief in support of Trump’s ban, said:

This decision is disappointing and clearly puts our nation in grave danger. The fact is that President Trump clearly has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue this order. It is clear: radical Islamic terrorists are at war with America. President Trump’s order is a proper and constitutional way to protect America.

Jessica Levinson, law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said:

It’s really important that the opinion is unanimous because judges that were appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents came to the same legal conclusion. This is probably going to the Supreme Court, but I don’t think it’s going anywhere good for Donald Trump — even if the Supreme Court rules along party lines and is deadlocked, because the lower court’s decision would stand.

A portion of the Ninth’s opinion read:

To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides.

Nevertheless we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.

I submit that a great deal on insight can be gleaned by listening to the tone and tenor of the three Ninth Circuit judges as illustrated here, making one wonder: were the arguments of the government cogent or had they not considered their audience?

It is no surprise that Demorats and Leftists nation-wide are thrilled to no end by the decision and will use it as a rallying cry to continue to obstruct President Trump and his administration on every level.

Apparently 8 USC 1182 makes little difference to federal courts as I wrote in my post here.

Additionally, have courts forgotten about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the:

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate.

Who last utilized this act? That would be Demorat President Jimmy Carter in 1979, 38 years ago, in order to specifically keep Iranians out of the United States. It would seem to me that application by Carter, according to the Ninth Circuit, focuses on a specific country and a specific religion. Not illegal then? Why not?

Carter did more. He made all Iranian students who were already in the United States, check in with the government. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979. Not illegal then? Why not?

I should care to point out that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an “applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”

Doing what I call the “logical extension,” would it not be reasonable to conclude that since the Koran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, all Muslims should be refused immigration to country? Just asking.

The argument provided by Judge Robart in his Washington opinion stated that refugees had essentially committed no acts of violence or terror in the US. Other than being a naked lie issued from an individual who is educated but apparently has learned little and lives in a bubble, I should also care to point out a sampling of such attacks in the US:

  • Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan went on a jihadi stabbing rampage at Ohio State.
  • In 2016, an Iraqi refugee Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan was accused of planning to bomb a local mall in Texas.
  • In September 2016, a Somali-Kenyan immigrant named Dahir Adan went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
  • Somali refugee Mohamed Osman Mohamed was arrested for planning to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon back in 2010.
  • In 2012, Abdullatif Ali Aldosary, an Iraqi refugee, bombed a Social Security Office in Arizona.
  • Two Iraqi refugees were convicted for having aided Al-Qaeda in Iraq in killing American servicemen. These so-called “refugees,” lied on their applications, and as proof that the screening process is ineffective, were allowed entry without issue.
  • Both Boston Bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, were asylum-seekers fleeing Russia and living in Kyrgyzstan before entering the United States.

Everyone also conveniently forgets — Demorats and the federal courts in particular, that following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror:

SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

This once more profoundly illustrates the critical need to confirm the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch as a SCOTUS associate justice because, likely, this case and others will end there.

A final note: any 4-to-4 tie in the Supreme Court now does nothing more than uphold the decision of the applicable appeals court.

The US Constitution is not a proverbial suicide pact. We have the right to determine just who enters the country, as becoming a citizen is a privilege and not a right.

It is too early to fear. It is time, however, to continue to redouble our conservative efforts.

You can be assured the Demorats, Leftists and anarchists will.

BZ