Posted tagged ‘Trump agenda’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

You’re Fired!

January 31, 2017

You’re Fired! Front Page Magazine, Matthew Vadum, January 31, 2017

(Please see also Trump Fires Acting Attorney General. There Prof. Turley explains why President Trump was right to fire the acting Attorney General. 

Trump clearly has the right to fire Yates.  Indeed, Yates’ action (and rationale) contradicts long-standing Justice Department policies on such issues.

— DM)

sfg

President Trump last night fired the insubordinate acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she ordered federal prosecutors to ignore Trump’s lawful emergency executive order restricting travel and immigration from Islamic terrorist-infested nations.

The Yates termination may foreshadow a major house-cleaning at the U.S. Department of Justice. That agency is overrun by left-wing careerists who have no respect for the rule of law and who operate under the legally and morally grotesque assumption that aliens, including suspected terrorists, ought to enjoy all the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Yates “has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” Trump said in a press release. “This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”

He called Yates “an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”

“It is time to get serious about protecting our country,” Trump continued. “Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”

Last night President Trump also relieved acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Daniel Ragsdale of his duties. No reason for the decision had been reported at press time. The new acting ICE director is Thomas D. Homan who has been executive associate director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) since 2013.

When the U.S. Senate was considering Yates’s nomination for deputy attorney general in 2015, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), whose nomination as attorney general is pending in the Senate, made his opposition known. According to Politico, Sessions “urged his colleagues to defeat Yates” objecting “to what he said was her involvement in defending the federal government against a lawsuit 26 states have filed challenging unilateral actions Obama took in November to grant millions of illegal immigrants quasi-legal status and work permits.” Sessions described the Obama actions as “presidential overreach.”

Hours before Trump ended Yates’s employment, Yates  took the extraordinary step of directing Justice Department attorneys to refuse to defend Trump’s executive order in court.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” she wrote in a letter to lawyers at the Department of Justice. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

“Consequently, for as long as I am the acting attorney general, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so,” she wrote.

Yates’s tenure as acting attorney general ended around dinnertime last night. Around 9 p.m. the president replaced her with Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Boente will serve in the post “until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons,” Trump said.

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz described Yates as “a terrific public servant” who “made a serious mistake here.”

“This is holdover heroism,” he said. “It’s so easy to be a heroine when you’re not appointed by this president and when you’re on the other side.”

Reaction on Twitter was predictably ridiculous.

Unsurprisingly, the nearly-impeached former Attorney General Eric Holder expressed support for Yates.

Holder tweeted last night, “Sally Yates: person of integrity/attorney with great legal skill. Has served this nation with distinction. Her judgment should be trusted.”

Leftist column writer and Obama idolator E.J. Dionne tweeted, “Monday Night Massacre: Trump fires Sally Yates, Acting AG who refused to defend his indefensible #MuslimBan. History will remember her well.”

Football player Rob Carpenter tweeted, “AG upholds the law. Dictator wanna be says you don’t agree with me. You’re fired.”

Actor Jason Alexander tweeted, “King Trump fired the Attorney General. So law and constitution, which he sworn on a bible to protect now clearly mean nothing. Like truth.”

Yates may have a lucrative career ahead of her on the public speaking circuit. Maybe MSNBC will give her a talk show. The Left takes care of its own.

All of this drama flows from the executive order President Trump signed Friday that suspends travel from Muslim terrorism-plagued countries.

The executive order blocks visas for 90 days for “immigrants and non-immigrants” from the terrorism-producing Muslim-majority countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen.

The order also prevents refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days, indefinitely halts the entry of Syrian refugees, and adjusts downward the cap on refugee admission into the U.S. to 50,000 during the current federal fiscal year which ends Sept. 30, 2017.

The presidential directive also requires the government to keep Americans informed about terrorism-related activities and crimes committed by foreign nationals in the U.S. and to report on the individuals’ immigration status.

Critics have mischaracterized the executive order as a Muslim immigration and travel ban. It is an odd critique given that the three countries with the largest Muslim populations –Indonesia, Pakistan, and India– aren’t included in the order.

Groups funded by radical financier George Soros are behind a lawsuit challenging the order.

On Saturday evening Obama-appointed Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York blocked part of the executive order and prevented the Trump administration from deporting arrivals detained in airports across the nation. The restraining order preserves the status quo for those who arrived in the country shortly after the executive order was signed if they have visas or lawful permanent resident status.

Before Donnelly’s narrowly drawn restraining order was issued Saturday evening, near-riots broke out as leftist freak shows descended on airports across America. Demonstrators were horrified that some individuals were actually being detained at ports-of-entry as required by the president’s 100 percent legal and constitutional executive order. The left-wing hissy-fit consisted of radicals trespassing and endangering airport security by staging disruptive in-your-face protests at airports around the country.

The HAMAS-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is playing a major role in the protests against the executive order, Lee Stranahan reports at Breitbart. The group has been organizing demonstrations and promoting opposition to the order on social media. The United Arab Emirates has declared CAIR a terrorist organization.

To no one’s surprise, former President Barack Obama praised the airport protesters, saying through a spokesman he was “heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country.”

“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by the elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake,” the spokesman said Monday.

Obama intends to conduct his own shadow presidency and attack the Trump administration for years to come. The former president has rented a fancy house on Embassy Row in the nation’s capital that is expected to serve as his anti-Trump administration war room.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D) tweeted Saturday night, “I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.”

Meanwhile, although left-wing law professor Jonathan Turley said he disagrees on policy grounds with Trump’s executive order he argues it is nonetheless legally bulletproof.

“The law does favor President Trump in this regard,” Turley said Sunday on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” show. “I don’t like this order. I think it’s a terrible mistake — but that doesn’t go into the legal analysis. The Court has been extremely deferential to presidents on the border.”

The courts won’t buy the left-wing talking point that the order constitutes a ban on Muslim travel and immigration, Turley explained.

“I do not believe a federal court will view this as a Muslim ban,” he said.

I don’t think the court can. Regardless of what the court may think of President Trump’s motivations, the fact that other Muslim countries are not included is going to move that off the table and what’s going to be left is whether the president has this type of authority. Historically, courts have said that he does.

Americans who want their country back after eight years of Obama-created lawlessness don’t need to get upset at the chaos left-wingers are trying to generate to undermine President Trump.

In this case the law is on their side.

Categories: Acting Attorney General, Department of Justice, Executive order, Obama administration, Obama and Islam, Obama and law enforcement, Trump agenda, Trump and Islamists, Trump and refugees, Trump presidency, Trump's first weeks as President
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Is The Trump Executive Order on Refugees Unlawful?

January 31, 2017

Is The Trump Executive Order on Refugees Unlawful?, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, January 31, 2017

djt

If the 1965 law means what the ACLU has suggested, actions by presidents from Carter to Obama would be facially unconstitutional.  Presidents have routinely identified countries as raising threats requiring special procedures.  President Obama was among them.  There is no requirement that this can only be done in response to an attack or specific threat if the president finds a national security danger.  Courts are loathe to substitute their judgment on such questions for a president.

*********************************

I previously discussed how President Donald Trump has the advantage in a constitutional challenge of this executive order suspending entry for refugees and imposing special limitations on seven stated countries.  As I have noted, this does not mean that there are not legitimate questions raised, particularly over the express preference to be given “religious minorities” under the order. However, the case laws heavily supports a president’s plenary power over such border controls.  There remains however a question over whether the law could be constitutional under a president’s inherent authority but still unlawful under statutory authority.  Most of that argument centers on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which bars discrimination based on nationality or place of origin.  There are clearly compelling arguments on both sides of this question, but once again I believe that critics may be overstating the 1965 law as making the executive order facially invalid.  As I have repeatedly stated since this executive order was signed, I believe it was a terrible mistake, poorly executed, and inimical to our values as a nation.  However, legal analysis by a court should not be influenced by such personal viewpoints.  The question is solely whether the president is barred statutorily from taking this action.

The federal law relevant to this question stands in oppose tension between provisions that grant sweeping authority to a president while at the same time limiting that authority with regard to certain types of discrimination.  As we previously discussed, the 1952 immigration laws states in Section 1182(f): “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”   That is obviously quite sweeping and supporting of the actions taken under this executive order.

However, in 1965 the Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That laws was designed to end the quota system given numerical preference to certain European countries.  The  operative provision states “no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”  Congress exempted Cuban refugees but otherwise stated that no discrimination based on national or place of residence would be tolerated.

It is important to recognize what the 1965 law does not do. First, it does not apply to refugees and thus would not impact much of this order.  This deals with immigrants securing visas.  Second, the law does not ban discrimination based on religion.  Third, the law governs visas not later requirements of reporting or other conditions once immigrants are granted entry. Thus, President Carter signed out Iranian for special procedures and deported thousands of them.  Finally, and most importantly, the law was itself amended in 1996.  Congress expressly stated that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination.  Thus, the Administration could argue that “vetting procedures” are exempted even for non-refugees.

With the exemption of green card holders, the foot print for analysis under the 1965 language has been reduced further by the Administration.  Notably, the Office of Legal Counsel reviewed these laws and signed off on the legality of the executive order.  I expect it was due to these exemptions and the amendment.

That does not mean that there is not a compelling argument to make but it is not as facially clear as has been suggested.  Like the OLC, I would still give the advantage to the Administration.  However, this is clearly the best foundation for challenge.

Of course, that leaves a potential conflict between the statute and inherent president authority in a rehash of past cases like U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright.  In that opinion, the Court held:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

Presented with such a conflict, the provision could be narrowly construed.  Courts have long adopted interpretations that would avoid such conflicts.  If there is a narrow interpretation of the 1965 law that would avoid the conflict, it traditionally has been favored by federal courts.

The challenge to the order is also burdened by history.  If the 1965 law means what the ACLU has suggested, actions by presidents from Carter to Obama would be facially unconstitutional.  Presidents have routinely identified countries as raising threats requiring special procedures.  President Obama was among them.  There is no requirement that this can only be done in response to an attack or specific threat if the president finds a national security danger.  Courts are loathe to substitute their judgment on such questions for a president.

So where does all of that leave us?  It leaves us with a good-faith challenge to an executive order, but a challenge that will have to clear away a host of existing cases to prevail.  Could it happen?  Sure, but it is important not to overstate the authority in the area or allow passions to overcome analysis.  At most the 1965 law would be relevant to part of the order and even for that portion (on the seven identified countries) the Administration has strong arguments on the basis of inherent plenary authority and statutory exemptions.

 

Categories: Christian refugees, Executive order, Refugees, Trump agenda, Trump and refugees, Trump presidency
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

FULL MEASURE: January 29, 2017 – Rise of Populism

January 31, 2017

FULL MEASURE: January 29, 2017 – Rise of Populism, via YouTube, January 30, 2017

 

Categories: BREXIT, Europe, Europe and BREXIT, Europe and President Trump, European establishment, European left, European populism, Geert Wilders, Trump agenda
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Leftists Determined to Stop Trump from Defending America

January 30, 2017

Leftists Determined to Stop Trump from Defending America, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, January 30, 2017

(Please see also, Separating fact from sickening media fiction on Trump’s immigration executive order. — DM)

jfk-airport-protests

President Trump’s executive orders on the Mexican border and the temporary ban on immigration from seven countries that are hotbeds of jihad terror have the Left in an uproar that increases in hysteria by the minute, proving once again that the Left will be satisfied with national suicide and national suicide only – not anything less.

What has the Left so enraged is a simple declaration of an intention to protect and defend the United States. Trump’s executive order states that it is designed “to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” How dare he! It adds: “The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.”

It’s racism! The Nation published an article entitled, “How to Fight Trump’s Racist Immigration Policies.” Bigotry! The Detroit Free Press editorialized: “Immigrant, refugee ban reflects fear, bigotry.” Islamophobia! Vox informed us that “Trump says his refugee ban is about protecting America. It’s really about Islamophobia.”

Here is the substance of that racism, bigotry and Islamophobia, straight from the executive order:

The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

So acting to prevent people who have no intention of obeying American law and approve of honor killings, other violence against women, and the persecution of non-Muslims and gays is such an outrage that Leftists have begun nationwide protests. Meanwhile, in response to a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), federal judge Ann Donnelly on Saturday night issued an emergency stay, barring U.S. officials from deporting people who were being detained at airports. According to CBS News, “the order barred U.S. border agents from removing anyone who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It also covered anyone with an approved refugee application.”

However, it didn’t cover those who had not yet made the trip. The Department of Homeland Security announced on Sunday morning that it would “continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.”

Trump wasn’t backing down, either, despite the Left’s treating this executive order as if it were the second coming of Auschwitz and Dachau. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus defended the executive order on Sunday on “Face the Nation”: “This is not a Muslim ban. All this is is identifying the seven countries — and the reason we chose those seven countries is those were the seven countries that both the Congress and the Obama administration identified as being the seven countries that were most identifiable with dangerous terrorism taking place in their country. You can point to other countries that have similar problems like Pakistan and others — perhaps we need to take it further. But for now, immediate steps, pulling the Band-Aid off, is to do further vetting for people traveling in and out of those countries.”

Priebus added: “This was a promise that President Trump had made and it’s a promise that he’s going to keep. And he’s not willing to be wrong on this subject — we need to do our best to be vigilant and protect Americans.”

That is what makes President Trump, after just over a week in office, the recipient of even more hatred from the Left than George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. And they’re just getting started.

Categories: Executive order, Leftists, President Trump, Trump agenda, Trump and immigration, Trump and Islamic terrorism, Trump and refugees
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Mattis requesting Iraqi interpreters, pilots be exempted from Trump’s travel ban

January 30, 2017

Mattis requesting Iraqi interpreters, pilots be exempted from Trump’s travel ban, Washington Examiner, Jamie McIntyre, January 30, 2017

secdefDefense Secretary Jim Mattis has requested some broad categories of Iraqis be exempted from President Trump’s 90-day travel ban. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has requested some broad categories of Iraqis be exempted from President Trump‘s 90-day travel ban, a Pentagon official tells the Washington Examiner.

The categories would include interpreters who risked their lives alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as Iraqi pilots who have been traveling to the United States to learn to fly F-16s.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the list of categories has not been finalized, said the exemption would not require any changes to the president’s memo ordering a travel ban from seven majority-Muslim countries, but rather would be in the form of implementing guidance to the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration.

The travel ban’s effect on Iraqi citizens drew particularly sharp criticism from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL,” Sen. John McCain said. “But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies.”

Rep. Seth Moulton, a former Marine officer who worked to get his interpreter asylum in the U.S., lashed out in an appearance on ABC on Sunday.

“You know, I worked for Gen. Mattis. I know him. There is no way in hell that he is supportive of this. He relied on translators for his life, just like I did,” Moulton said.

One of the first people detained after the travel ban was enacted was Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who worked as an interpreter for the U.S military for 10 years. He was released Saturday afternoon.

Categories: Executive order, Iraqi pilots, James Mattis, Military translators, Temporary travel ban, Trump agenda
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Honeymoon’s over: Ex-Obama official Susan Rice calls Trump NSC reshuffling ‘stone cold crazy’

January 29, 2017

Honeymoon’s over: Ex-Obama official Susan Rice calls Trump NSC reshuffling ‘stone cold crazy’, Washington Times, Valerie Richardson, January 29, 2017

susanricecomplainsNational Security Adviser Susan Rice during the daily press briefing in Washington on July 22, 2015. (Associated Press) **FILE**

She also retweeted a message from “Juan, P.E.” that said, “Trump loves the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place.”

***************************

It didn’t take long for the old administration to attack the new administration.

Former national security advisor Susan Rice ignited a feud Sunday with the Trump White House by ripping the recent reshuffling of the National Security Council as “stone cold crazy.”

White House spokesman Sean Spicer fired back by calling Ms. Rice’s comments “clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador” and took a swipe at the Obama administration’s track record on national security.

“And when you talk about the missteps made by the last administration, with all due respect, I think Ambassador Rice might want to wait and see how we handle this,” Mr. Spicer said on ABC-TV’s “This Week.”

The back-and-forth came in response to Saturday’s memo placing White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon, the former editor of Breitbart News, on the National Security Council while removing the director of national intelligence and the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff from NSC principals meetings.

“This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy,” Ms. Rice said on Twitter. “Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?”

She also retweeted a message from “Juan, P.E.” that said, “Trump loves the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place.”

Mr. Spicer said reworking the meetings represents an effort to “streamline the process for the president to make decisions on key, important intelligence matters,” insisting that Mr. Trump will receive guidance regularly from top military and intelligence officials in other venues.

“The president gets plenty of information from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He continues to meet with him on a regular basis,” Mr. Spicer said. “He gets briefed by the secretary of defense, but what they have done is modernize the National Security Council so that it is less bureaucratic and more focused on providing the president with the intelligence he needs.”

This wasn’t Ms. Rice’s first attack the Trump administration. Ms. Rice, who served under President Barack Obama for the entirety of his two terms, including four years as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., spent the first week of Mr. Trump’s presidency leveling critiques on Twitter.

“Trashing Trans Pacific Partnership is a big fat gift to China, a blow to key allies, and a huge loss for American global leadership. So sad!” Ms. Rice said in a Monday tweet.

On Mr. Trump’s relationship with Mexico, she said, “Messing with Mexico is stupid and dangerous. Mexico has been key to limiting the flow of Central American migrants to the U.S.”

A few days later, she hit the Trump administration for issuing a Holocaust Memorial Day message that referred to “innocent people” without specifically mentioning Jews, saying, “Just imagine the response if Pres. Obama did that!”

That Ms. Rice would target the Trump White House so quickly represents something of a departure from the traditionally hands-off approach of previous administrations. President George W. Bush was widely praised for refusing to criticize Mr. Obama after he took office.

One week into his successor’s term, Mr. Obama has stayed above the fray, but others close to the former president have felt no such compunction.

His 18-year-old daughter Malia was spotted last week at an anti-Dakota Access pipeline protest during the Sundance Film Festival after Mr. Trump signed a directive to expedite the review process.

Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has been hired by the Democrat-controlled California state legislature to serve as a bulwark against the Trump administration’s policies on issues such as climate change and immigration.

Ms. Rice’s combative stance drew pushback on social media. Not surprisingly, criticism has centered on her five Sunday talk-show appearances blaming the deadly 2012 Benghazi raid on a “hateful” anti-Islam YouTube video.

“Don’t you have some YouTube video you should be basing foreign policy on, has-been?” actor Nick Searcy, who appears in FX’s “Justified,” said in a tweet.

Others have cheered her on. “@AmbassadorRice Please stay active, don’t retreat into prudence and retirement,” said Jorge Guajardo, former Mexican ambassador to China.

Ms. Rice said she also was outraged that Vice President Mike Pence may chair NSC meetings instead of the president. “Never happened w/Obama,” she said.

Before the inauguration, Ms. Rice struck a more cooperative note, insisting she was “rooting hard” for incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

“While it’s no secret that this administration has profound disagreements with the next one, I intend to make myself available to him, just as my predecessors have for me,” Ms. Rice said in a Jan. 10 speech to the U.S. Institute for Peace. “We are all patriots first and foremost. Threats to our security and democracy should be above partisanship.”

Regarding Mr. Bannon’s role on the council, Mr. Spicer said the chief strategist is a former naval officer who has a “tremendous understanding of the world and the geopolitical landscape that we have now.”

“Having the chief strategist for the president in those meetings who has a significant military background to help guide what the president’s final analysis is going to be is crucial,” Mr. Spicer said.

Categories: National Security Council, Obama administration, President Trump, Susan Rice, Transition, Trump administration, Trump agenda
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Separating fact from sickening media fiction on Trump’s immigration executive order

January 29, 2017

Separating fact from sickening media fiction on Trump’s immigration executive order, Conservative Review,  Daniel Horowitz, Chris Pandolfo, January 29, 2017

myths-vs-facts-chalkboard

“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever risque he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.” ~Justice James Iredell, 1799

There is a lot of confusion swirling around the events that transpired this weekend as a result of Trump’s executive order on immigration. Make no mistake: every word of Trump’s executive order is in accordance with statute.

It’s important not to conflate political arguments with legal arguments, as many liberals and far too many “conservatives” on social media are doing.  While the timing and coordination of implementing this order might have been poorly planned, we shouldn’t allow that to undermine the broader need to defend our sovereignty.  For courts to violate years’ worth of precedent and steal our sovereignty should concern everyone.

What the order actually does

Among other things, the key provisions at the center of the existing controversy are as follows:

It shuts off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 30 days from the following seven volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Any non-citizen from those seven countries (not “all” Muslim countries) is excluded from entering the country during this time-period (which usually means they won’t be able to board a direct flight to America).  After 90 days, the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security must submit a report to completely revamp the vetting process going forward.

Within 60 days, countries will have to submit any information that the administration determines necessary, pursuant to the findings of this report, in order to adjudicate a visa application and ensure they are properly vetted. Any country that fails to submit this information will not be able to send foreign nationals to our country. All the while, the ban can be extended and expanded at any time.

In addition, the entire refugee resettlement program is suspended for four months pending a complete investigation of the program and a plan to restructure it and prioritize those who are truly in danger of religious persecution. After 120 days, the program may resume, but only for those countries Secretaries Kelly and Tillerson determine do not pose a threat. The program from Syria is completely suspended until the president personally gives the green light.

[T]his was actually a judicious and cautious approach from Trump.

With regards to refugees and those who seek to enter from the seven countries temporarily excluded, the order gave discretion to the State Department and DHS to admit individuals on a case-by-case basis for important reasons, even during the temporary moratorium.

Statement of principles on the right of a country to exclude non-citizens

Those who want to immigrate: There is no affirmative right, constitutional or otherwise, to visit or settle in the United States. Period.

Based on the social contract, social compact, sovereignty, long-standing law of nation-states, governance by the consent of the governed, the plenary power of Congress over immigration, and 200 years of case law, our political branches of government have the power to exclude or invite any individual or classes people for any reason on a temporary or even permanent basis – without any involvement from the courts.[1] Congress has already delegated its authority to the president to shut off any form of immigration at will at any time.

Immigrants already here: Those already admitted to this country with the consent of the citizenry have unalienable rights. They cannot be indefinitely detained. However, they can be deported for any reason if they are not citizens. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), which is still settled law, the court ruled that Congress has the same plenary power to deport aliens for any reason as it does to exclude them and that the statutory procedures and conditions for doing so are due process.[2] Congress has established the process for deportation of those already here.  However, as long as a legal permanent resident leaves the country he has no affirmative right to re-enter.[3] Either way, they have absolutely no right to judicial review other than to ensure that statutes are properly followed.

But can Trump prevent those with green cards from re-entering the country?

The statute is clear as day. The Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) gives the president plenary power to “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.” Clearly, the president has the authority to block any non-citizen – including refugees, green card holders, and foreign students – from entering the country.  Also, for purposes of deportation, there is no difference between a green card holder or a holder of a non-immigrant visa.  No foreign national who has not yet obtained citizenship has an affirmative right to re-enter the country.

Is this a ban on Muslim immigration?

No, it’s a moratorium on immigration or re-entries from seven individual countries and a temporary moratorium on refugees from all countries, subject to case-by-case exceptions.

Why didn’t Trump place restrictions on immigration/visas from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries?

That’s probably a good idea.  But this was actually a judicious and cautious approach from Trump to start with low-hanging fruit.  These seven countries are failed states or enemies of the U.S. (in the case of Iran).  As such, there is absolutely no way to share data with the host countries and properly vet them.  Somalia has been one of the biggest trouble spots.  The other countries are marred in Islamic civil wars.  Moreover, these are the countries that existing law targets for travel restrictions, and that Obama’s own DHS listed last year.

Why would Trump include green card holders in the ban on re-entry?

Both liberals and conservatives expressed concern over hundreds of individuals going over to fight for ISIS.  We are already limited in how we can combat this growing threat among U.S. citizens.  Given that it is completely legal to exclude non-citizens upon re-entry, Trump extended the ban to legal permanent residents as well.

If a Somali refugee is travelling back to Somalia (so much for credible fear of persecution!), government officials should have the ability to prevent that person from coming back when necessary. Obviously, there are some individuals from these seven countries who already have green cards and we might not want to exclude. That is why the order grants discretion to the State Department to issue case-by-case exemptions for “religious persecution, “or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship.”  A CBP agent is always stationed at any international airport from which these individuals would board a direct flight to the United States (Paris and Dubai, for example). That individual would not allow anyone covered by this ban onto a U.S.-bound flight unless he grants them a hardship exemption.

Indeed, it appears that green card holders returning yesterday from those seven countries were all granted entry.

What’s with the chaos at the airports and the courts?

Henceforth, CBP agents will not allow individual aliens from those seven countries to board a flight to the U.S. So the chaos will end.

The problem arose from the 100 or so individuals that were already in transit when the order took effect. When they arrived at American airports, they were detained at customs. Standing at this point is not tantamount to being on American soil.[4]  However, a federal judge in New York issued a stay and prevented the feds from sending two individuals back on a flight. Other judges have prevented officials from even detaining such persons. It’s unclear if federal agents might have made a mistake and released some of these individuals before ordering them to leave the country. Once they are released onto American soil, any effort to remove them is treated as a deportation, not an exclusion, and is subject to the due process afforded them by congressional statutes (not the Constitution).

Thus, it’s unclear if the stay even applied to any element of the order or whether it applied to anomalous circumstances or particular actions taken by federal officials that overstepped the order.

It’s also confusing because many contemporary judges have no respect for our sovereignty and have been gradually chipping away at the plenary power of Congress (or the president, pursuant to statute) to exclude aliens re-entering the country, despite years of settled law. If courts are indeed violating our sovereignty, this is the very grave danger I warned about in Stolen Sovereignty.  Either way, it should not affect the ability of the administration to enforce the order against those who want to prospectively board flights to return.

Categories: Executive order, Immigration law enforcement, President Trump, Refugees, Trump agenda, Trump and Middle East, Trump and refugees, Trump on Islamic jihad
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

President Trump’s Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right

January 29, 2017

President Trump’s Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right, PJ Media, David P. Goldman, January 28, 2017

terroristpic

The first duty of the U.S. government is to show kindness to prospective American victims of terrorism. And it’s great to have a president with the guts to do something about it.

************************

President Trump kicked over a hornet’s nest by imposing a 90-day ban on immigration from selected Muslim countries in keeping with his campaign pledges. Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor who convicted the blind sheikh and his accomplices of the first World Trade Center bombing, explains why the ban is legal–despite a federal judge’s restraining order against implementation of the order. I’ll leave it to the legal experts to explain why this is yet another outrageous abuse of power by the judiciary.

The legal issues will be sorted out soon enough. It’s the right policy, despite liberal whining and some conservative complaints.

The liberals claim that the immigration halt will convince Muslims that the U.S. administration isn’t fighting ISIS and other terrorists, but Muslims as a religious group. Some conservatives, e.g. Walter Russell Mead, call it “callous.” The latter characterization is misleading. It is callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks. In Europe, the elites accept a certain level of terrorism as the cost of doing business, and the people grudgingly accept it. Americans don’t see why they should sacrifice their safety or sense of security to accommodate the hurt feelings of other people. Prof. Mead compares this to America’s refusal to accept Jewish immigrants during the Holocaust. I respect Mead, but I find the comparison offensive: How many Jewish refugees from Hitler murdered civilians at random (the answer is, not one)?

As for the argument that the measure will alienate Muslims, precisely the opposite is true. Many Muslim governments, institutions, and individuals do not actively support terrorism, but tolerate it. Active terrorists are a small minority, but they swim in a sea of broader Muslim opinion that sympathizes with terrorists like Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

hamas

The last time the Pew Institute surveyed Muslim opinion about Hezbollah and Hamas (in 2010), it found majorities or very large minorities in support of these terrorists in most of the largest Muslim countries. In the United States, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)–founded by the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine–routinely denounces acts of terror on American soil, but has never once criticized Hamas terrorism in the Middle East.

The Obama administration and the Bush administration hoped to persuade Islamist extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch) to change their spots and turn peaceful. That didn’t work.

The alternative is to serve notice on Muslim governments: If they don’t crack down on terrorists and their supporters, we won’t let their citizens into the United States until we find ways to vet entrants ourselves.

The terrorists have been winning the intelligence war because a very large number of Muslims fear the terrorists more than they do the counterterrorism efforts of the United States and other Western governments. The terrorists infest Muslim communities and operate like a gangland protection racket. It is dangerous to stand up to them. This will change when Muslims fear the U.S. government more than they fear the terrorists.

Is that cruel? Of course. The world is cruel, but its cruelty is not of our making. The first duty of the U.S. government is to show kindness to prospective American victims of terrorism. And it’s great to have a president with the guts to do something about it.

Categories: Executive order, Refugees, Trump agenda, Trump and Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Trudeau sends Trump a defiant message: “A Canadian is a Canadian”

January 29, 2017

Trudeau sends Trump a defiant message: “A Canadian is a Canadian”, CIJ News, January 29, 2017

(And a rabid dog is a dog. Please see also, Trump bans Canadian/British dual citizens from 7 Muslim countries from U.S. — DM)

The Embassy of Canada in the Washington announced that Canadian passport holders and dual citizens will not be affected by the US President Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” that temporarily bars travellers from seven nations that are known of their support of terrorism or serves as major hubs for terrorist groups.

Trump instructed the security agencies to formulate during the next few months a new policy to ensure a more effective security screening of terrorists and criminals before entering the US.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Trump’s National Security Advisor assured Ottawa that Canadian citizens travelling on Canadian passport will be dealt with in the usual process. In this regard, Trudeau tweeted the following:

Senior officials have been working to seek clarity for Canadians from the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Transportation, amongst other counterparts.

I instructed our National Security Advisor, Daniel Jean, who was in touch over the course of the day with NSA Flynn to seek further clarification.

NSA Flynn confirmed that holders of Canadian passports, including dual citizens, will not be affected by the ban.

We have been assured that Canadian citizens travelling on Canadian passport will be dealt with in the usual process.

As we receive new information, we will continue to share on this and other channels.

In an implicit defiant message to Trump’s policy, Trudeau also tweeted “A Canadian is a Canadian” which was one of his slogans during the election campaign and has become an important pillar of his diversity and inclusion-for-all policy. In previous tweets last week Trudeau recommitted to continue welcoming refugees “regardless of your faith” based on the his deep belief that “diversity is our strength” and hailed Canadians who participated anti-Trump rallies.

In a Winnipeg Town Hall on July 4, 2015 Trudeau said the following:

“The Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship.’ BECAUSE I DO. And I’m willing to take on anyone who disagrees with that. Because the question is, as soon as you make citizenship for some Canadians conditional on good behaviour, you devalue citizenship for everyone. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Speaking with students from American University in Washington, D.C. on March 11, 2016 Trudeau said the following:

One of the key elements of that [opposing the proposed Quebec Charter of Values] and a point that I am so incredibly proud of Canadians is a moment in our election campaign where the governing Conservatives put forward a proposal to strip and actually [they] enacted it before the election to remove the citizenship from Canadian citizens convicted of terrorism, dual citizens in this case, which quite frankly they thought it is a great idea because here they were, these are people convicted of terrorism against our country or acts of war against our country and they are therefore forfeiting the right to be citizens which seems like a reasonable thing, again. On a front.

But when you actually look at it and realize that means that someone convicted of terrorism with a dual citizenship could have different consequences under the law than a Canadian homegrown terrorist who has Canadian citizenship and is a six generation Canadian and therefore can’t have his citizenship removed at all.

You devalue the citizenship of everyone by making it conditional on good behaviour or non heinous behaviour which is ultimately the same thing.

So, I found my self in a situation on stage against the former Prime Minister [Stephen Harper] arguing that, yes, a man who he [Harper] had just stripped his citizenship of for being convicted of a terrorist act should have his Canadian citizenship restored even though he had literally, perhaps even literally, ripped up his Canadian passport. And yet I stand here as a Prime Minister of Canada.

People are reasonable. People need to understand that the rights and freedoms that keep us free and democratic society aren’t always easy and aren’t always a sort of a knee jerk adapted to how we want the world to be, but they are essential in terms of being the country we are and the people we are.”

 

Categories: Canada, Dual citizenship, Executive order, President Trump, Refugees, Trudeau, Trump agenda, Trump and Islamic terrorism, Trump and refugees
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

DHS “will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders” on immigration

January 29, 2017

DHS “will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders” on immigration, Jihad Watch, , January 29, 2017

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

**********************************

“President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.”

Steps to ensure border control and national security shouldn’t be controversial. That the Left is behaving as if they’re the second coming of the Nazi gas chambers shows how hysterical and silly Leftists have become, while their increasingly violent demonstrations show how eager they are to unleash rioting and bloodshed in the streets. I’ve long noted how thuggish the Left was becoming, and that tendency has sharply accelerated since January 20.

trump2-1

“Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation,” DHS.gov, January 29, 2017:

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

Categories: Executive order, Immigration law enforcement, Immigration reform, Refugees, Trump agenda, Trump and Islamic terrorism, Trump and refugees, U.S. courts
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »