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;
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.
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.
Why? Why not refer to the obvious? Because, after all, Leftists absolutely insist there are no agendas whatsoever entering into the lives or opinions of federal judges, right? Except that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants to change the Electoral College most recently.
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.
Or: “if you don’t succeed, try, try again.” President Trump stated:
“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.
Apparently 8 USC 1182 makes little difference to federal courts as I wrote in my post here.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the US government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety.”
Leftists, anarchists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots conveniently forget that Barack Obama banned all Iraqi refugees from entering the United States in 2011. No issue, no problem. From ABCNews.com, this quote:
As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.
Plus, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:
President Obama has barred huge groups of potentially dangerous immigrants from entering the United States at least six times, undercutting his claim that barring Muslims from terrorist countries as Donald Trump has proposed is un-American.
In his first ban, according to a search of White House records, Obama instituted a ban on “immigrants or non-immigrants” covered by a larger United Nations travel ban. He also included those on an economic sanctions list. Most countries were Muslim.
He cited the very same section of law that many critics of his policies have asked him to use, “section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” It says, “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 period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant’s or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
He used the same provision five other times, one more in 2011, twice in 2012 and twice in 2014. In those, he targeted people aiding Iran, Syria, Crimea, and those involved in war crimes.
Still, in his latest tirade against Trump‘s call for a ban on Muslims from terror nations, Obama said such bans violate the American way. In reaction to the Orlando terror attack, Trump said, “When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats.” Obama ripped him. “That’s not the America we want,” he said. “It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us less safe.”
White House documents also show that former President Bill Clinton issued six immigrant bans; George W. Bush six immigrant bans; and former President Ronald Reagan four. And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians after Tehran seized the U.S. embassy.
— July 25, 2011. Barred those under a UN travel ban, or who broke 29 executive orders covering transactions with terrorists. — Aug. 4, 2012. Banned anybody involved in war crimes, or just about any other crime including human rights violations. — April 23, 2012. Barred those helping Syria or Iran, or involved in human rights abuses for those governments. — May 1, 2012. Another block on those helping Iran and Syria. — April 3, 2014. Banned anyone known to threaten South Sudan. — March 6, 2014 . Barred entry of those claiming government authority in the Crimea region of Ukraine, presumably on behalf of Moscow.
Those seven enumerated countries referred to by Trump are the same countries previously identified by Barack Hussein Obama as problematic in nature for the United States of America.
Republican Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas stated:
“It’s simply wrong to call the President’s executive order concerning immigration and refugees a ‘religious test’ of any kind. I doubt many Arkansans or Americans more broadly object to taking a harder look at foreigners coming into our country from war-torn nations with known terror networks; I think they’re wondering why we don’t do that already.”
Let the battle of national sovereignty vs open borders officially commence. Leftists and anarchists finally come out and state what they want: “no borders, no nation, fuck deportation.”
Correct. Leftists want no borders. No actual nation called the United States. I thank them for being, at least this time, honest.
In the interest of keeping national sovereignty with an eye towards self-determination and self-interest as well as national security, President Trump signed an executive order on Friday the 27th which banned Syrian refugees indefinitely and immigration from Syria, Yemen, Somalis, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Iran for 90 days. Those countries were sourced referencing materials and incidents identified by the Obama administration.
Subsequently, Leftists, Demorats, anarchists and the American Media Maggots are losing their minds. Not that they were particularly well-assembled in the first place.
The Usual Suspects in the EU, Germany and France — Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande — are and will be doing their level best to demolish Trump’s decision. I suspect they are shocked they may be holding the refugee bag themselves only — but rightly so. They were the ones who decided to accept the refugee hordes in the first place, going so far as to ask for them. The true creator of the refugee problem is Barack Obama. Perhaps therein lies their umbrage.
Yes, these countries are predominantly Muslim — not for lack of trying by Christianity but because Christians are simply killed — as it is Islam that wishes to convert or kill the rest of the planet, and it is Islam that is directly linked to terror events aimed at the US and other western countries. The point at issue is the threat and danger represented by these nations. That they are mostly Muslim is a link but not the primary point. If Islam were not involved but they were still as dangerous the threat would still exist. If you merely changed the word “Catholic” to “Muslim,” for example — everything else being the same — I would strongly support Trump’s executive order.
Let’s not forget that ISIS and Islam has told us that its goal is to infiltrate Westernized countries like those of the EU and the United States. Terror groups are up front in terms of
At odds with damned near the entire state, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare in California, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said:
“In light of attempts by jihadist groups to infiltrate fighters into refugee flows to the West, along with Europe’s tragic experience coping with this problem, the Trump administration’s executive order on refugees is a common-sense security measure to prevent terror attacks on the homeland.”
Additional irony was provided by Fornicalia’s newly-minted attorney general, Xavier Becerra, who has apparently been unconscious for the last eight years.
“Justice in America doesn’t live or die on the stroke of one man’s pen regardless of how high his office.”
If that isn’t remarkably obtuse, I don’t know what is.
Concern for our borders and who we allow into the country isn’t new. Let’s listen to the God of Demorats, William Jefferson Clinton, in 1994.
Bill Clinton limiting immigration? Obama barring Muslims not just once? What about Hillary Clinton who, it was revealed by Wikileaks, admitted that Muslim refugees could not properly be vetted?
“They can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, Jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.”
What about James Comey who said they could not be vetted?
A question for Leftists: if Islam has nothing to do with terrorism as you claim, why would a ban on immigrants from dangerous Muslim countries promote recruitment for ISIS and provoke terror attacks?
Another important question for Leftists: why do Muslim “refugees” flee to Christian/Western countries and not to their fellow Muslim countries? Let’s listen to a Muslim answer Katie Hopkins.
Leftists and those who wish to do harm to the United States, up in arms over President Trump’s common sense EO, cannot believe that 1. Donald Trump means to put America’s interests first and, 2. He is doing precisely what he said he would.
Leftists, Demorats, anarchists and the American Media Maggots don’t want you to understand that immigration to the United States was essentially halted between 1924 to 1965, via the Immigration Act of 1924 (otherwise known as the Johnson-Reed Act). The act provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia. This was changed in the 60s by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which opened up numbers of immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe.
Make no mistake: Islam is a global cancer that is little-understood by the bulk of the planet. It means to — and tells us this everyday, in the clear, verbally and in writing — convert infidels to Islam or kill them. It removes freedoms, rights, oppresses women and children and continues to slaughter infidels, Kaffirs and each other in horrendous ways. I have said for years: “Islam is as Islam does.” It is a common sense axiom that would be applicable to any and every religion acting as does Islam in terms of violence and death.
Why is all of this important or necessary? Here is one critical reason, from ABCNews.com:
The question comes down to this: is the stay on immigrants an issue of threats posed, or is it a matter of Islam?
Because here is what isn’t happening.
There is not a ban on individuals from Indonesia. Why is that important? Because Indonesia is the area which contains the greatest number of Muslims on the planet (around 62%), much greater than the Middle East.
Six of the seven countries to which the temporary visa issuance block applies were designated as “state sponsors of terrorism” or “countries of concern” by previous Democrat administrations, most Obama’s — also Jimmy Carter’s. Only one — Iran in 1984 — was designated by a Republican administration.
Remember: this emphasizes once again that the Demorats, Leftists, anarchists, the American Media Maggots and even a number of Republicans like John McCain and Lindsay Graham have no interest whatsoever in telling you the truth, revealing highly-important information, referencing history or placing issues in context. Where were Little Chuckie Schumer’s tears in 2015 and 2011 due to Obama’s actions? Where were McCain and Graham’s objections in those years because of Mr Obama’s declarations?
It’s all part of what I consider to be one of BZ’s Conventions: never let facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion and common sense get in the way of a good emotive and frakked-up decision.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the persons who were complaining about illegals who don’t belong in this country had as much concern about the quality of medical service provided to our veterans, the plight of our homeless veterans, and taking care of our own mentally-challenged and poor first.
BZ
P.S.
There was a recent shooting (Sunday, 1-29) at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada, with six persons killed. In steps BZ’s Terror Axiom: the longer authorities conceal the nature of actors in terror incidents the more likely they are Muslims. We know two of the suspects are Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir Plus, the suspects yelled “Allahu akbar” as they shot people. That is called a clue. One must read almost the entire article to find this highly-important bit of information.
[See background material here about President Trump’s first travel stay, with additional excellent insight from Byron York here.]
Following an unsatisfactory 
It is, considering history, acceptable for both of those persons to have stopped immigration for a period of time, referencing 
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.
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!”
President Trump is following through with any number of his campaign promises. To wit: