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

 

Byron York nails federal judge James Robart

Who, as it turns out, knows next-to-nothing about the state of immigrants in America.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

by Byron York

James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump‘s executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried.

Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State’s claims. Indeed, for all except the most partisan, it is likely impossible to read the Washington State lawsuit, plus Robart’s brief comments and writing on the matter, plus the Justice Department’s response, and not come away with the conclusion that the Trump order is on sound legal and constitutional ground.

“A judge is just a lawyer who curried favor with a politician.”
— Russell Baker, NYT columnist

True, as you get to become a federal judge by being nominated by a senator from your individual state. In the Ninth DCA, remember, covering California, Oregon and Washington, you’re getting six Demorat senators who are going to do nothing but nominate Demorat judges. Can I get a “duh” from the audience?

Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart’s restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president’s constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment” about risks faced by the United States.

Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?”

“Your Honor, I don’t have that information,” said Bennett.

Who does? Judge Robarts swears he does but he either 1) knows nothing, or 2) simply pulled the figure out from his judicial arse.

“Let me tell you,” said Robart. “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you’re here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

No support for that? ISIS has, in fact, said time after time that it insinuates members into refugee streams throughout all the European nations. The Washington Post throws out a number: 60. Byron York writes about Judge Robart’s ruling:

Now, it turns out Robart might not know as much as he let on. Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest analyzed public sources of information, seeking to learn more about people convicted of terror-related offenses. The Justice Department provided the subcommittee with a list of 580 people who were convicted — not just arrested, but tried and convicted — of terror-related offenses between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2014.

But more specifically:

The subcommittee investigated further and found that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born and that an additional 129 were of unknown origin. Of the 380, there were representatives — at least 60 — from all of the countries on the Trump executive order list. And with 129 unknowns, there might be more, as well.

Byron York continues with his original argument:

Perhaps Robart has been briefed by the intelligence community on conditions in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and the rest. Perhaps Robart has received the President’s Daily Brief. Perhaps not.** In any event, the Justice Department argued — reasonably but not successfully — that it is the president, and not a U.S. District Court judge in the Western District of Washington State, who has the knowledge and the authority to make such decisions.

“Your Honor, I think the point is that because this is a question of foreign affairs, because this is an area where Congress has delegated authority to the president to make these determinations, it’s the president that gets to make the determinations,” Bennett said. “And the court doesn’t have authority to look behind those determinations.”

Again I repeat, at the risk of becoming the Department of Redundancy Dept., President Trump’s authority to primarily do as he did is granted under 8 USC 1182.

Please read the rest of Mr York’s excellent article which essentially states this: a federal judge overstepped his bounds. Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in again and thinks the Ninth District Court of Appeals may just reverse Judge Robart and reinstate the executive order as he believes Washington and Minnesota lack the requisite standing.

Also please see my first post about Trump’s travel stay here, where I go into great detail about the executive order, its roll-out and legality.

Finally, Judge James Robart is an odd-duck cipher; a Bush-appointed Republican who goes askew on strange issues. From BlueLivesMatter.com:

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

by Officer Blue

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

Seattle, Washington – U.S. District Judge James Robart on Monday expressed a strong anti-police bias when dealing with a case involving Seattle police union’s contract negotiations. Judge Robart went on a rant about deadly force statistics against black people and proclaimed, “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart is presiding over a 2012 consent decree requiring the city to adopt reforms to address Department of Justice allegations of biased policing and excessive force. The proposed changes will have a major effect on all union members, including discipline being investigated and determined by non-law enforcement investigators. The changes make it faster and easier to discipline an officer if the public believes that the officer was wrong, whether or not that was actually the case.

Continuing to build an image in his mind of being some sort of folk-hero, Judge Robart went on to say that 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population. Judge Robart then declared that “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart’s rant is actually a perfect example of why law enforcement officers cannot be excluded from the process of disciplining other officers. The statistics on police shootings that Judge Robart cited were completely out of context, and ignore the reasons that shooting occur.

Milo Yiannopoulos talks about immigrants and refugees having destroyed Europe.

I don’t believe Americans or Europeans hate immigrants or immigration. What they do dislike is watching their countries — particularly the EU — being consumed from within by hordes of individuals in such numbers as to almost ensure no assimilation whatsoever. Sadly, it is from the EU that we should learn. Again, thank the Atlantic Ocean.

Bottom line? I believe the law is on President Trump’s side. That does not mean there weren’t visual problems with its roll-out and coordination. And it doesn’t mean that judges don’t have axes to grind or agendas to keep.

One interesting note: the judge in Boston who held for President Trump likely has the Boston Marathon Bombing in the back of his mind, has experienced the reality of close terror and wants to ensure we know whom we’re allowing into our nation.

BZ

P.S.

This is England. This could be the United States — beginning with Michigan — shortly. Remember: “demography is prophecy.”

Wise up, America. Educate yourself about Islam.

Finally, this is President Trump speaking about illegal immigrants and the need to follow the rule of law.

Oh wait, sorry. That was Barack Hussein Obama in 2005. My mistake. A black man can say this about illegal immigration but Caucasoids cannot. A grievous error on my part.

 

Seattle judge halts Trump immigration stay

Just when you thought the US was beginning to turn and refrain from insisting upon self-implosion, in comes a federal judge to disabuse you of the notion.

From the WSJ.com:

Seattle Judge Used Broad Power to Halt Executive Order

by Ashby Jones and Jacob Gershman

Federal judges don’t often issue nationwide orders, but they have the power to do so

As a U.S. District Judge in Seattle, Judge James L. Robart typically handles federal cases affecting businesses and individuals in the western half of Washington state, an area roughly bordered by the Pacific Ocean in the west and the Cascade Range in the east.

But on Friday, Judge Robart expanded his reach, ordering a halt to President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on immigration and refugees. A federal appeals court early Sunday rejected a request from the Justice Department to immediately reinstate the order, asking for more court filings before it rules on the matter.

The district court ruling applies to the entire country. That makes it broader in scope than others that preceded in recent days. Orders issued in Brooklyn, Alexandria, Va., Boston and elsewhere were mostly “picking apart pieces of the executive order,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Judge Robart’s order halts the Trump directive in its entirety.

Federal judges don’t often issue nationwide orders, but they have the power to do so, legal experts said.

A significant portion of the Bush-appointed federal judge’s ruling (Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-141) revolved around uniformity.

This emphasis on uniformity was key to Judge Robart’s order. He acknowledged the Trump Administration’s argument that any restraining order should be limited to the two plaintiff states — Washington and Minnesota. But Judge Robart rejected the request, concluding that a “partial implementation would undermine the constitutional imperative of a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and Congress’s instruction that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”

Lest we become unhinged like Leftists, let us also recall this.

Judge Robart borrowed language from Brownsville, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who in 2015 issued a nationwide injunction blocking the implementation of Obama administration policies that granted some protection to children of illegal immigrants.

In another high-profile nationwide order, a federal judge in Los Angeles in 2010 issued a nationwide injunction against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which banned openly gay men and women from serving in the military.

However, the opinion does tend to confirm what most of us already suspected: federal courts and judges damned near have absolute and imperial power. There is also another problem with “uniformity rulings.”

Nationwide injunctions have been criticized by legal scholars, who say they can encourage judge-shopping, and imbue a single litigant with outsize power.

“The idea is that you pick a judge who’s friendly, go to court, and stop a big government program before there’s been a trial, or before the judge even has an evidentiary record,” said Mr. Winkler.

Further:

Such orders can raise other complications, too. Other districts are free to make and implement their own nationwide orders, which might conflict with those already on the books.

Partly for that reason, nationwide orders are sometimes put on temporary hold by appeals courts, to stave off uncertainty that might otherwise ensue.

So what were the “interests” considered by Judge Robart in Washington? From ZeroHedge.com:

The DOJ appeal faces an uphill battle: “The Washington suit is so much more broad than anything else we’ve seen because it goes into the economic interests of the parties — that’s a very big development,” Hoffman said of a likely appeal by the federal government. “Appeals of temporary orders occur only in very, very extraordinary measures. I doubt it would be successful.” The reason why Robart was so quick with his decision is because he had the support of some of America’s largest tech companies.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the effects on his state included economic consequences for employers based there, including Microsoft Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. Bellevue, Washington-based Expedia Inc. had about 1,000 customers with flight reservations in or out of the U.S. from the seven countries, he said.  Meanwhile, DOJ lawyer Michelle Bennett, arguing at Friday’s hearing, said the president was acting within the authority granted him by Congress and there was no financial harm to the states. The judge disagreed.

Ponder that for a moment. The judge considered that, because tech companies cannot find a sufficient number of propeller-heads in the United States, they were potentially subject to harm. That is a portion of the basis for his ruling. Because adequate programmers can apparently only source from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya and, for fuck’s sake, Sudan and Somalia?

Doing the logical extension, Robart is intimating that because US universities do not produce a sufficient number of young, qualified technological candidates for today’s computer mechanics and applied science, to refuse Syrian refugees would somehow damage Washington employers? Really? What kind of serious training does it take to yield a barista who knows how to make a machine sound like it’s hocking a loogie into your paper drink cup?

A Boston federal court originally supported Trump but Robart’s decision, being most recent, applies in terms of chronological supremacy.

Map of federal district courts of appeal throughout the United States, by district number.

Here is what will occur: the case will wind itself into the Ninth District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, historically the most leftist federal appeals entity in the Milky Way, to include Andromeda and Orion as well. The 9th is also, historically, the most overturned — at various points up to 90%.

On Sunday, as expected, the Ninth DCA allowed a continuance of Trump’s travel stay suspension. From the WashingtonPost.com:

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

by Matt Zapotosky and Robert Barnes

A federal appeals court on Sunday ruled that President Trump’s controversial immigration order will remain suspended for the time being, allowing those previously banned from coming to the United States at least another day to get here.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit preserves a lower judge’s order to temporarily halt the ban — and based on a schedule the court outlined, the stop will remain in place at least until sometime on Monday. The Justice Department said it would not elevate the dispute to the Supreme Court before that.

Pundits and scholars are united in opining: Sooner or later the issue will have to reach the US Supreme Court.

In the meantime, a number of the suits against the Trump stay have some serious legal problems themselves. From Breitbart.com:

Travesty of Legal Errors in Immigration EO Lawsuit

by Ken Klukowski

Washington and Minnesota’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order (EO) showcases a cavalcade of legal errors.

First, the lawsuit could have been dismissed by the district court (or the court of appeals) in whole or in part for lack of jurisdiction. Second, the district court did not give the required legal reasoning in its order to justify the TRO. Third, the court had no business enjoining the executive order nationwide, instead of just in the two states. But fourth, once the district court issued the TRO, the appeals court had no authority to touch any other aspect of this legal challenge until it reaches the next stage of litigation.

But the please note the following.

The Supreme Court has reiterated countless times that when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in a lawsuit, the only power the court has is to explain why it cannot claim jurisdiction, then dismiss the case.

That’s what should have happened for many of the claims in this lawsuit, rather than taking the extreme step of issuing a TRO.

Which leads to another problem with the TRO: Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to “describe the injury” suffered by the plaintiff. Robart claimed that Washington and Minnesota had carried their burden of showing they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their lawsuit, but never says which ones. The states obviously cannot succeed on a claim they have no standing to raise in the first place. Robart failed to provide the legal reasoning for his decision.

But having made those errors, there is nothing the Justice Department can do until the TRO is superseded by a preliminary injunction (PI). A TRO expires within 14 days of being issued, unless another event overtakes it first.

As indicated prior, there is a fundamental bottom line.

Given the liberal makeup of the Ninth Circuit, however, the Justice Department faces an uphill fight in San Francisco. More likely this issue is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning that President Trump’s EO—and immigration as a whole—could become a major topic of discussion in the confirmation process of the Supreme Court’s incoming ninth justice, Neil Gorsuch.

And therein lies the rub. You see now why holding SCOTUS is critical, absolutely critical for each side of the aisle?

President Trump, of course, does himself and his administration no favors when he fails to keep his mouth shut or his fingers off Twitter. He wrote in response to Robart’s decision in part (above): “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Beyond unendearing yourself to your enemies, similar acts tend to make life more difficult than necessary. President Trump is already beginning to encounter the DC roadblocks that foundational documents term “checks and balances.”

That said, Judge James Robart 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. On the other hand, truthfully, he is not obligated in any way to do so.

What’s occurring presently is legal blowback from any number of issues, to include the hasty and ill-considered implementation of the order, and the failure to consider the issue of green card visas.

I go back to the topic of SCOTUS and — now — the vastly greater importance of Judge Neil Gorsuch. You can be guaranteed, with no reservations, that Demorats will filibuster the nomination of Gorsuch.

Conversely, any Republican — repeat, ANY Republican — who fails to get his or her arse in line with the nuclear option must be dealt with harshly and without remorse. They must be excised like the worst offensive tick, parasite or invertebrate.

Here is why: with Gorsuch uninstalled or stalled, the Supreme Court remains impaneled at the eight count. It is easy to foresee a straight split on the issue — four pro and four con.

When that happens, the lower court ruling stands.

BZ

 

Schumer: Trump was “mean spirited and un-American”

I’m sorry, folks, it’s taking all I possess to not erupt in a rather large and admittedly juvenile rant against the staggering hypocrisy exhibited by the Demorats, Leftists, anarchists, American Media Maggots, Hollywood and even Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

I’m here to shed light to the lies and the hypocrisy. I exist to shine light on the cockroaches who scurry when caught in illumination.

Let’s watch Little Chuckie Schumer cry tears on command (anyone besides me immediately think of John Boehner?) when he spoke about President Trump being “mean spirited and un-American” regarding his recent travel stay from identified countries.

Schumer is a massive hypocrite as I’m shortly to illustrate. As per normal, Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots continue to forget that I have access to the internet. From TheHill.com:

Schumer: Refugee pause may be necessary

by Alexander Bolton, 11/17/15

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, on Tuesday said it may be necessary to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.

Republicans immediately seized on Schumer’s comment, which breaks with other Democrats who have argued against halting the program.

Schumer, however, declined to take the option off the table ahead of a special briefing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on the process that is now used to vet refugees entering the United States.

“We’re waiting for the briefing tomorrow, a pause may be necessary. We’re going to look at it,” he said.

Schumer seems to have forgotten his prior stance.

Leftists have conveniently forgotten this story regarding Barack Obama and Cuba. Somehow this never rose to the level of rage and umbrage we see now. To wit:

Flashback: Obama Stranded Legal Cuban Travelers in Airports on Last Week in Office

by Frances Martel

As the radical left organizesobstructions of airport terminals to protest President Donald Trump’s executive order enacting new security measures for travelers visiting from turbulent countries, few appear equally outraged that his predecessor, Barack Obama, issued a similar directive specifically targeting Cubans.

During his last week in office, President Obama repealed a long-standing executive order known as “Wet Foot/Dry Foot,” which allowed all Cubans legally touching U.S. soil to stay here illegally. The objective of the executive order was to give sanctuary to Cubans risking their lives on makeshift vessels trying to sail to the United States and escape the oppressive communist regime that has governed there for over half a century.

The move did not trigger widespread national protests in defense of the Cubans affected, even as U.S. immigration officials – confused by the lack of direction in Obama’s order – detained and interrogated countless travelers possessing legal visas to enter the United States. Many of these were elderly individuals, traveling to visit their children with no intention of stay.

Historical Alzheimer’s — purposely — strikes the American Media Maggots serially. It is truly continuing intellectual dishonesty.

Any and every nation never loses its right to sovereignty, self-interest and self-determination. Coming to the United States of America is a privilege and not a right in any way.

Leftists will continue to lie, cheat and sue with abandon, just as I will continue to expose their lies, strategies and tactics.

I. AM. PUSHBACK.

BZ

 

US: cut aid to countries refusing immigrant returns

Remember this number: H.R. 82, the Criminal Alien Deportation Act of 2017.

From FoxNews.com:

Law would cut off aid to countries that refuse to accept illegal immigrant criminals

by Malia Zimmerman

A proposed law that would punish countries that refuse to take back their illegal immigrant criminals is two years too late to save Casey Chadwick, but the Texas congressman behind it figures it’s the least Washington can do.

Chadwick was murdered in 2015 by Jean Jacques, an illegal immigrant from Haiti and one of thousands freed onto U.S. streets each year after they serve prison time because their homelands refuse deportation. But a proposal by Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, the Criminal Alien Deportation Enforcement Act, would force such countries to take back their citizens or risk losing foreign aid and travel visa privileges.

Babin’s bill would require the Department of Homeland Security report to Congress every three months the names of uncooperative countries. The federal government would then withhold foreign aid to those countries while the State Department would suspend travel visas.

Rep Babin is re-introducing his original H.R. 5224 from last year. This year, the content of the bill is as follows:

Criminal Alien Deportation Enforcement Act of 2017

This bill amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prohibit financial assistance to a foreign country that refuses or unreasonably delays the acceptance of an alien who: (1) is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of such country; and (2) has received a final order of removal from the United States.

A country shall be deemed to have refused or unreasonably delayed acceptance of an alien if it does not accept such alien within 90 days of receiving an authorized repatriation request.

The Department of Homeland Security shall submit a report to Congress every three months that: (1) lists the countries that refuse or unreasonably delay repatriation; and (2) includes the total number of aliens who were refused repatriation, organized by country, detention status, and criminal status.

A listed country shall be subject to U.S. entry and financial assistance prohibitions unless it issues appropriate travel documents: (1) within 100 days after such report’s submission for aliens convicted of a crime committed in the United States, and (2) within 200 days after such report’s submission for all other aliens.

A victim (or an immediate family member thereof) of a crime committed by any alien who has been issued a final order of removal shall have standing in federal district court to enforce entry and financial prohibitions.

The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended to: (1) discontinue granting visas to a subject, national, or resident of a listed country unless the country has issued the appropriate travel documents pursuant to this bill; and (2) grant standing to enforce such provision in federal district court to a victim (or an immediate family member thereof) of a crime committed by any alien who has been issued a final order of removal.

Tucker Carlson speaks with Rep. Babin about the bill.

Can anyone, I ask, make any cogent argument whatsoever against the bill? I would care to hear any argument against same. The bill is nothing more than the application of common sense.

It’s no secret that Mr Obama’s policies regarding illegal immigrants acted in the interests of Mexico and illegals globally, and not in the interests of the United States — with the exception of the voting benefits to Demorats and cheap labor to some Republicans. Both sides are wrong on the issue in those arenas.

This is a bill whose time is quite well overdue.

BZ