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;
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:
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.
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.
“I was, like many others I believe, surprised by the comments made about Sweden this weekend,” Lofven said during a joint press conference in Stockholm with visiting Canadian Governor General David Johnston.
Trump, speaking in Florida on Saturday, said; “You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible”.
Trump was referring to this documentary by Ami Horowitz about Sweden and its Muslim refugees.
The problem, of course, is that so-called “no-go zones” in Sweden are real, as opposed to assertions by the Swedish government, embarrassed as it is by its soft white underbelly revealed. They are not the “humanitarian superpower” they think they are. The Swedish government cannot admit any fault. Their moral superiority regarding multiculturalism cannot, must not, be damaged. They deny and will continue to deny because their GOWP hearts won’t allow otherwise.
The secondary problem is that Sweden then lit up with riots. But you can’t say that. And you can’t say that President Trump was correct. Or can you? Please listen to the woman in this video, as she provides a cogent explanation for all. Frankly, there is nothing better than video examples of these issues. They need to be seen and they need to be heard.
A SWEDISH police officer has launched a seething attack on the country’s politically correct approach to immigration as he claimed migrants were to blame for the most serious crimes.
In a Facebook rant, Peter Springare said his post was not politically correct, but he did not care as he was soon retiring after 47 years of service.
Sweden has been hard hit to cope with unprecedented levels of crimes and incidents, as the National Criminal Investigation Service admitted last year that more than 50 areas were labelled as ‘no-go zones’ where police did not have control.
Swedish police have been ordered not to release descriptions of crime suspects which include race or nationality to avoid being branded racist. A memo handed out to all officers instructs them to withhold the information from the public when reporting all routine crimes, including burglary.
From now on, crimes must be reported on the police website without mentioning basic descriptive information such as “height, skin colour, nationality and race, etc.” the memo, seen by Svenska Dagbladet (SvD), reads. According to the paper, the new regulation could be applied to everything “from minor traffic accidents to serious crimes like muggings, beatings and murder.”
The memo makes it clear that the instruction has been handed down to avoid accusations of racism, telling officers: “The police are sometimes criticised for reporting on peoples’ skin colour. We are perceived as racist. As the police are not racist, nor should be perceived as such, from now on, please apply these instructions.”
This, of course, is in-depth information you won’t find on other websites, other government reports, other cable channels. Because they don’t have the time or the inclination for it. What I do, with each post, is take an idea or a theme and then write about it logically, cogently and chronologically — as I do here.
The bottom line? Sweden’s government is trying to cover up Muslim refugee/immigrant violence because it doesn’t reflect well on Sweden’s GOWP philosophy of “all people are equal and all cultures are equal.” Guess what? They’re not.
According to Sweden, to reveal the truth about Muslim refugees/immigrants is tantamount to a Thought Crime or a Hate Crime.
Between 2012 and 2016 the murder rate climbed almost 70% in Sweden. These are official Swedish statistics. Rape between 2007 and 2015 is up almost 70% as well. In Sweden you can be imprisoned for providing an unpopular opinion. There is no such thing as the First Amendment in Sweden.
Trump Is Right: Sweden’s Embrace of Refugees Isn’t Working
by Jimmie Akesson & Mattias Karlsson
When President Trump last week raised Sweden’s problematic experience with open-door immigration, skeptics were quick to dismiss his claims. Two days later an immigrant suburb of Stockholm was racked by another riot. No one was seriously injured, though the crowd burned cars and hurled stones at police officers.
How Sweden became an example of how not to handle immigration
by Tove Lifvendahl
We’ve taken in far too many people and we’re letting them down badly – especially the children
For a British boy to be killed by a grenade attack anywhere is appalling, but for it to happen in a suburb of Gothenburg should shatter a few illusions about Sweden. Last week’s murder of eight-year-old Yuusuf Warsame fits a pattern that Swedes have come slowly to recognise over the years. He was from Birmingham, visiting relatives, and was caught up in what Swedish police believe is a gang war within the Somali community. Last year, a four-year-old girl was killed by a car bomb outside Gothenburg, another apparent victim of gang violence.
The acknowledgment of which is refused by the Swedish government. Because the truth, eventually, will out.
For years, Sweden has regarded itself as a ‘humanitarian superpower’ — making its mark on the world not by fighting wars but by offering shelter to war’s victims. Refugees have arrived here in extraordinary numbers. Over the past 15 years, some 650,000 asylum-seekers made their way to Sweden. Of the 163,000 who arrived last year, 32,000 were granted asylum. Sweden accepts more refugees in proportion to size of population than any other nation in the developed world — when it comes to offering shelter, no one does it better. But when it comes to integrating those we take in (or finding the extra housing, schools and healthcare needed for them), we don’t do so well.
Did I not specifically quantify Sweden’s idealistic vision of itself, above, as a “humanitarian superpower”? The focus then becomes more strident.
It may be news to the rest of the world, but gang warfare has been a feature of our country for years now. Stockholm has been witness to Dickensian scenes of young pickpockets and thieves playing games of cat-and-mouse with the police, who feel powerless. Until fairly recently, Sweden was admired for its progressive social policies. Today, one in seven voters supports the Sweden Democrats, a populist party until recently reviled in polite Swedish society.
The cost of accommodating our child refugees is enormous: £160 per child per day. That could be money well spent, if it worked. There are serious concerns, though, about children falling victim to predatory adults who have lied about their age. Earlier this year, a boy of 12 was raped in refugee accommodation by another refugee who claimed to be 15. A dental X-ray suggested the attacker was closer to 19. Later that month, a 22-year-old Swede (herself the daughter of immigrants) was stabbed to death by one of the refugees she was caring for — another adult claiming to be 15.
The problem with Sweden is this: the huge dichotomous conflict. The Scandinavian country received more refugees per capita than anywhere else in Europe last year. The total population of Sweden, for example, is 9.5 million. This is not far from the population of, say, New York City at 8.4 million.
1. Germany and France have the largest Muslim populations among European Union member countries. As of 2010, there were 4.8 million Muslims in Germany (5.8% of the country’s population) and 4.7 million Muslims in France (7.5%). In Europe overall, however, Russia’s population of 14 million Muslims (10%) is the largest on the continent.
2. The Muslim share of Europe’s total population has been increasing steadily. In recent decades, the Muslim share of the population throughout Europe grew about 1 percentage point a decade, from 4% in 1990 to 6% in 2010. This pattern is expected to continue through 2030, when Muslims are projected to make up 8% of Europe’s population.
3. Muslims are younger than other Europeans. In 2010, the median age of Muslims throughout Europe was 32, eight years younger than the median for all Europeans (40). By contrast, the median age of religiously unaffiliated people in Europe, including atheists, agnostics and those with no religion in particular, was 37. The median age of European Christians was 42.
How Muslim Migration Made Malmo, Sweden A Crime Capital
by Michael Qazvini
Scores of Swedes took to the streets of Malmo, a southern city in Sweden, on Monday to protest an epidemic of violence that has taken the lives of far too many young people. The last victim was 16-year-old Ahmed Obaid. He was killed last Thursday after an unidentified gunman unleashed a salvo of bullets.
“Our kids should sleep well, play at play parks, feel safe,” Housam Abbas, the victim’s cousin, said, according to the Local.
Malmo, this once quiet city, is now overrun with violence. The culture of fear is so palpable that parents are no longer comfortable sending their children out to play.
“You have to look over your shoulder when you go out at night now. I don’t let my little brother go out at night any more,” said one high school student at Monday’s protest in front of city hall. “I hope that the politicians actually view this as a serious problem and start to solve this in Malmö.”
Stand by for the truth.
After being handed a list of measures to curb the violence in the city, Justice and Migration Minister Morgan Johansson stated in a matter-of-fact tone: “We have to get rid of the weapons, we need tighter punishment so that those who are held for serious gun crime can be arrested immediately and not just be released a few days later.”
What Johansson failed to mention, however, was the fact that the bulk of the violence stems from one community.
The Muslim immigrant community has a crime problem. It’s a truism that Swedish (and European) politicians have denied in bold-faced lies and assurances to the public.
But wait. Wait.
Didn’t President Trump say that Sweden had a problem? And didn’t Sweden and other Fake News organs say it wasn’t true?
The Ninth and Robart’s court essentially gave due process rights to people in Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Iran. People outside this country possess no constitutional rights whatsoever. Additionally, despite that, 77% of refugees arriving in the US since the travel stay suspension have been from those seven enumerated countries. One-third of that 77% are from Syria alone.
Even Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is telling us the obvious.
BY DR. JOHN C. EASTMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 02/10/17 02:20 PM EST
Like it or not, Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States on Nov. 8, 2016, and sworn into office on Jan. 20, 2017. He won the election, in significant part, because he promised to enforce our nation’s immigration laws more vigorously and to enhance significantly the vetting of refugees and other aliens seeking admission to the United States, in order to ensure to the extent possible that terrorists were not coming to our shores.
Nevertheless, there is now a concerted effort by many on the left (and even some on the “Never Trump” right) to block President Trump at every turn in order to prevent him from implementing the agenda on which he was elected.
As of Wednesday, Trump was still waiting on confirmation for 10 of his 15 Cabinet nominees. By this time in 2001, then-President George W. Bush had his entire Cabinet confirmed. Then-President Barack Obama was just three short of a full Cabinet on Feb. 8, 2009.
Senate Republican leaders asserted this week that — based on numbers provided by the Partnership for Public Service, Plum Book, and Congress.gov — Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point in the presidency of any incoming president since George Washington.
Regrettably, that effort now seems to include using the courts to achieve political ends that could not be achieved through the electoral process.
The 9th Circuit’s order upholding Judge Robart’s nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) is nearly as bereft of legal analysis as was the original TRO.
For example, in determining whether Trump was likely to succeed on the merits, one might have expected some discussion of the relevant statute that unambiguously gives the president the authority to do what he did here (and what President Carter, in response to the Iranian take-over of our embassy in Tehran, did back in 1979).
“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 restriction he may deem to be appropriate.”
If you are a reader of this blog and a listener to my radio show, I suspect some of this information is beginning to sound repetitive. 8 USC 1182? President Carter?
It does not get much clearer than that, yet the 9th Circuit does not even cite, much less explain away, that statute.
Nor did the 9th Circuit cite the language in controlling Supreme Court precedent that makes unmistakably clear that the decision whether or not to admit aliens or any class of aliens is an inherent aspect of sovereignty vested by our Constitution in the legislative and executive branches of our government that is “largely immune from judicial control.”
Instead, the 9th Circuit held that the denial of visas to foreign nationals from countries that President Obama himself had certified as being hotbeds of terrorism likely violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, despite the fact that another controlling decision of the Supreme Court has quite clearly held that foreign nationals have no right whatsoever to enter the United States, and hence no property or liberty interest that is subject to the Due Process clause.
Again, does this not sound familiar to you? Dr Eastman summarizes wonderfully.
Whether or not a particular judge or panel of judges likes the policy judgment made by the president, it is the president, not the judge, who was elected to make that decision.
Indeed, the notion that a single federal trial court judge can take it upon himself to determine national security and immigration policy, in the face of explicit determinations made by the president with the full support of law actually adopted by Congress, is so far beyond the judicial role as to pose a serious threat, not just to our national security, but to the rule of law.
That a panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the order does not place it on more solid footing but rather merely expands the lawlessness to a higher court. One can only hope that the Supreme Court will put a stop to this usurpation, and quickly.
Otherwise, we as a nation have a much bigger problem to confront than terrorists seeking entry to the United States.
Some have distilled the decision to some solid bullet points, like Ben Shapiro.
1. States Suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” If Aliens Can’t Come To University Classes.This is absolutely absurd. It would strike down virtually any immigration law. All immigration laws restrict classes of people from entering, numbers of people from entering. Some of those people would undoubtedly go to university, or teach there. Does this mean that states can now sue to overturn all immigration laws?
2. The Federal Government Doesn’t Suffer “Irreparable Injury” If The Courts Overrule Immigration Policy. The court casually states that while the government has an interest in combatting terrorism, the “Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.” The executive branch didn’t explain sufficiently to the judiciary why the executive order needed to be put into effect, and so the executive branch has to go home emptyhanded. Again, this is ridiculous. Are we supposed to wait to be hit? Would the judiciary apply this same standard to, say, gun control laws?
3. Everybody Has Due Process Rights. This is perhaps the craziest element of the ruling: the statement that everyone from lawful permanent residents to aliens with a visa traveling abroad has due process rights. The court even says that illegal aliens have due process rights. The Constitution isn’t just for citizens anymore – which begs the question as to why anyone would bother applying for citizenship.
4. Courts Can Look To Motive Rather Than Text. The court said that they could look at Donald Trump’s statements during the campaign about a Muslim ban in order to evaluate this executive order. This is dangerous. Attempting to read the minds of those who put together laws is far more arbitrary than reading the text or looking at the application of the law. It’s also amazing that the Ninth Circuit would say this now, but that the Supreme Court would ignore President Obama saying for YEARS that Obamacare was not a tax, then rule that Obamacare was indeed a tax.
5. The Court Refuses To Strike Down Portions. Normally, the court works to avoid striking down entire laws or staying entire executive orders. Instead, the court just threw up its hands and suggested that it had done its best, but it couldn’t bother doing a close read.
First, a brief bit of truth about the Middle East.
Second, an interview by Tucker Carlson of the District of Columbia (DC) Attorney General (AG), Karl Racine, who allows us to peek briefly into the minds of the Cabal of Black Robes.
Please note Tucker extrapolating the argument, doing what I call the “logical extension,” as if it hadn’t occurred to an attorney and — perhaps it didn’t. Which in and of itself is a massively short-sighted and extremely troubling issue, particularly when unseen by a highly educated individual like AG Racine.
What Tucker has exposed if you’re reading between his questions is the insular and inbred fashion in which the law exists today via the manner in which it is interpreted by Left-leaning judges.
AG Racine, however, does provide some light, some very noteworthy light, in his response to Tucker’s questions about “what next”?
The government argued that Trump’s executive orders were “unreviewable.” I’m going to go out on a limb a bit and say 1) that was a major tactical error on behalf of the government, because 2) human nature became involved, meaning 3) the judges got pissed off and reacted viscerally — as in “oh really? We shall now show you what is ‘unreviewable.’ ”
AG Racine made one incredibly-important point by intimating the government had not done its homework, when it could not provide one instance in which a refugee had been arrested or charged with terror in the US. Judge Robart said that was because there were none to cite, which is a lie. Racine made the point, however: the government was ill prepared. I cited numerous cases here, however.
Tucker then brought up the issue of Soviet Jews who were allowed into the US up until 1988 simply because of their persecution due to religion — clearly a “religious test.” Again, upon which AG Racine was caught flat-footed in response. Being a student of Paul Ekman and Sgt Carl Stincelli, I noted during the formulation of Carlson’s question the darting concern in the eyes of Racine as he either consulted notes or accessed spheres in his brain from which to respond.
AG Racine then made more interesting points when he said the words of Trump and his aides essentially came back to bite them. Yet Tucker perseveres with the truth when he factually refers to US law having been predicated upon “country of origin.”
However, AG Racine once more provides illumination to Tucker Carlson.
“Your department of justice did not make any of the arguments you made.”
“They found the government’s arguments were unavailing.”
The underlying subtext being: had the government made those arguments, would they have prevailed?
Moreover: why did the government not provide those arguments?
Then let us listen to Newt Gingrich bring some history into view with regard to federal judges.
RETWEET THE HELL OUT OF THIS!
Newt: The ACLU has a “fascist mentality,” and as for the 9th Circuit: “Don’t impeach them, just ABOLISH them!” pic.twitter.com/icdhC3gjLP
It was Judge Andrew Napolitano who initially thought the Ninth Circuit might overturn Judge Robart.
Now, Judge Napolitano suggests a different strategy.
That tactic is: “Rescind the executive order and issue a new one.” As of this writing there are 48 lawsuits against President Trump; Napolitano believes that, if the case does hit the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts will consolidate all of them.
“We are going to keep our country safe. So we’ll be doing something very rapidly, having to do with additional security for our country. You’ll be seeing that sometime next week.”
What went wrong? I think we’re starting to see.
Leftists, Demorats and the courts insist that politics play no part in the decisions handed down. I humbly suggest that politics play most every part in the decisions handed down if one is, of course, cognizant of history and the past actions of, say, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.