Posts

ICE.XCheckII.3cops1arrest (1)

Yes, Liberals, We Can Deny Entry to Any Immigrant and for Any Reasons

What is happening in the courts right now goes beyond any debate over a “ban” on Muslim immigration. The courts have denuded the president of his plenary power over setting the refugee cap, which Trump applied evenly to every country included in his new executive order. Obviously, all the national security problems we have are from predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East. But let’s put that aside for a moment. Even if this was a ban on Muslim immigration, it would be legal. That is settled law of a sovereign nation state.

Let’s also ignore political considerations for a moment. From a legal standpoint, a nation can set any criteria for letting in any group of people. Through our elected representatives, we can decide to only bring in people with brown hair. We can shut off immigration to those with green eyes or those who are left-handed. The prudence of such a law would have to be dealt with on a political level. Any legal limitation placed on our sovereignty, by definition, means we are not a sovereign nation and that foreign nationals can forcibly control our destiny. This is a principle deeply rooted in the social compact, the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (governance by consent), and the sovereignty of a nation state. Even one who is politically a supporter of loose immigration laws should be alarmed by courts creating a legal limitation to restricting immigration.

We have already cited from endless case law and statements from our founders on the plenary right of a nation to determine who enters the country. I’d like to add some new source material that speaks to the current constitutional crisis:

In Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950), the Supreme Court made it clear that there is no right whatsoever to immigrate:

At the outset, we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the procedure which the United States provides.

And yes, the exclusion could be because any consideration, even race. Remember, we are talking about law and Constitution, not politics, prudence, or morality. From Ju Toy v. United States (1905):

That Congress may exclude aliens of a particular race from the United States, prescribe the terms and conditions upon which certain classes of aliens may come to this country, establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as come here in violation of law, and commit the enforcement of such provisions, conditions, and regulations exclusively to executive officers, without judicial intervention are principles firmly established by the decisions of this Court. [emphasis added]

Thus, not only is the right to exclude — even for bad reason — deemed settled law in the most emphatic terms, resting on the most foundational principles of sovereignty, but it is not reviewable by the courts. Two years prior, in “The Japanese Immigrant Case,” the court used the exact same language and declared that, based on an uninterrupted stream of near-unanimous decisions, the constitutionality of such an exclusion “is no longer open to discussion in this Court.”

In 1904 (Turner v. Williams), the court made it clear that it is facially absurd to assert a religious liberty, equal protection, or freedom of speech right to affirmatively immigrate to this country. This case speaks directly to what the modern courts are ignoring:

We are at a loss to understand in what way the act is obnoxious to this objection. It has no reference to an establishment of religion, nor does it prohibit the free exercise thereof; nor abridge the freedom of speech or of the press; nor the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is, of course, true that if an alien is not permitted to enter this country, or, having entered contrary to law, is expelled, he is in fact cut off from worshipping or speaking or publishing or petitioning in the country; but that is merely because of his exclusion therefrom. He does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter, forbidden by law. To appeal to the Constitution is to concede that this is a land governed by that supreme law, and as under it the power to exclude has been determined to exist, those who are excluded cannot assert the rights in general obtaining in a land to which they do not belong as citizens or otherwise.

It’s amazing how liberals worship the concept of stare decisis (court precedent) once a single liberal court overturns years of common sense case law and the plain meaning of the Constitution. But they have no respect for case law that is most firmly embedded in our sovereignty in the most emphatic language, including the courts own admission that they have absolutely no jurisdiction over the issue. All of this case law remains unsettled and unexplained by the civil disobedience of today’s modern judiciary. As I’ve noted before, this case law survived even the liberal Warren-era right up to this generation.

Some critics might suggest that we can’t draw any conclusions from the exclusion acts of the late 1880s because that’s when America was evil and racist. “Just like the courts upheld slavery and were wrong they are wrong about this,” some might suggest. “What about when the courts upheld the internment of the Japanese in the Korematsu case?”

There is a one-word answer to these questions: Sovereignty.

What liberals are missing is that there is a difference between abridging the rights of Americans or even immigrants and a right to affirmatively enter someone else’s country. Of course, we can’t just throw people into labor camps and indefinitely detain them without due process. But we don’t have to allow people into our country. Immigration is quite a different issue than indefinite detention. It’s like saying because you are not allowed to kidnap a visitor of your house and lock him in your attic you must allow anyone into your house in the first place.

As I’ve cited many times, Justice Robert Jackson, the famous Nuremberg prosecutor who was a champion of due process rights and wrote the dissent in Korematsu v. United States, said that “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.” Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 US 222-223 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting).] Scalia, in his Zadvydas dissent, made this same distinction between indefinite detention and the right to enter or remain in the country against the national will. Even the majority opinion at the time only granted relief because the individual legal permanent resident was being held longer than six months in prison (but only because his home country would not repatriate him).

Some might feel uncomfortable with the notion that there are no limitations on discriminatory, absurd, or “mean” immigration selection criterion. But those are political or sensibility arguments, not legal arguments. By definition, any limitation whatsoever on the power to exclude necessarily means that a foreign national has some sort of affirmative claim to assert jurisdiction and adjudicate his way into entry. As John Marshall, the judicial strongman himself, said:

The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.

But again, we are not even talking about a complete shutoff of Muslim immigration. We are no longer a sovereign nation and a sovereign people when courts, relatives of foreign nationals, taxpayer-funded refugee groups, and states can proactively demand any form of immigration they so desire. (For more from the author of “Yes, Liberals, We Can Deny Entry to Any Immigrant and for Any Reasons” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

27150179783_fef4b857d2_b (1)

Trump-Supporting HS Students Protest Pro-Immigration Banner, Get Suspended

A quartet of students at a Grand Rapids, Michigan high school has been suspended after it staged a protest in front of a pro-immigration banner at school.

The Grand Rapids Christian High School students intended to hold up their own signs stating “Trump” and “Build the Wall” in front of the banner which read “Immigrants are a Blessing Not a Burden.”

WTSP reports video shows a teacher “rushing over to stop” them when she saw they intended to display their homemade flyers.

In the following report, the protesters do not appear to be belligerent after confronted by the teacher; indeed, the reporter points out that some students merely walking by didn’t even notice what was going on.

Nevertheless, as Superintendent Thomas DeJonge noted in a letter to parents, the student protesters were suspended “because of the disruption they caused and disrespect they demonstrated toward fellow students and staff.” (Read more from “Trump-Supporting HS Students Protest Pro-Immigration Banner, Get Suspended” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

17008539407_ebdbab4eae_b (3)

The Radical Ties of the Imam Behind the Trump Immigration Lawsuit

The plaintiff listed in Hawaii’s lawsuit against President Trump’s executive order on immigration is a member of an organization that has several current and former leaders tied to terrorist activity.

Dr. Ismail Elshikh — the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii — is suing Trump in reaction to the second version of his immigration moratorium, which was signed on Monday. The order imposed a 90-day hold on foreign nationals from six terror-tied countries from entering the United States.

According to the Muslim Association of Hawaii website, Imam Elshikh is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), a fringe Islamic organization that has a board and current leadership stacked with radical Islamic connections.

Kyle Shideler, a terrorism expert and director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy, tells CR that it’s concerning that Imam Elshikh is a part of NAIF.

“Given NAIF’s history it should come as no surprise that the end goal of this lawsuit is, ultimately, weakening American counter-terrorism or immigration security efforts,” Shideler said.

He added: “That a member of an organization whose leaders have included a convicted war criminal, an individual who defended donating money to a Hamas linked charity, and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism bombing wants to tell the American people who they can admit for immigration should say a lot about why such an executive order is needed in the first place.”

Steven Emerson, the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, also voiced his concerns about Elshikh’s associations. He tells CR:

“NAIF is an extremely radical Islamist group whose leaders and members have defended some of the most violent terrorist groups in the world. Some members have been found to be actually linked to acts of Islamist terrorism. This is a group, some prosecutors have argued, whose incitement for violence could qualify their categorization as a providing material support for terrorism.”

Current NAIF board members include the former leader of an al-Qaeda-connected mosque and a radical preacher. Former leaders include a man convicted of leading an international death squad, and a prominent Islamist preacher who has praised Osama bin Laden.

Current NAIF leadership

Omar Shahin, a current board member of NAIF, is the former president of the Islamic Center of Tucson, a mosque that was once utilized as the “de-facto al-Qaeda headquarters in the United States,” according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. As imam of the mosque, Shahin raised funds for the Holy Land Foundation, which was later shut down for funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas. He also held fundraisers for the Global Relief Foundation, which was later deemed by the U.S. Treasury Department to be connected to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

El Shikh received his PhD from the Graduate Theological Foundation Islamic Studies Department, which is headed by Shahin. The program was created in collaboration with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that was started as a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Dr. Waleed Meneese, another NAIF board member, has explicitly called for fellow Muslims to kill Jews. “When the Children of Israel returned to cause corruption in the time of our Prophet Muhammad,” Meneese said in a recent sermon. “And they disbelieved him, God destroyed him at his hand. In any case, God Almighty has promised them destruction whenever they cause corruption,” he said of the Jewish people.

Meneese has also called for the killing of apostates from Islam, and for the treating of non-Muslims as second-class citizens.

Former NAIF leadership

Ashrafuzzaman Khan is the former president of NAIF and a current leader at the Muslim Brotherhood-connected Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In 2013, he was tried in a Bangladesh court as he was accused of drafting a kill list of intellectuals inside the country. He was charged with 11 counts of war crimes as the alleged leader of the Al-Badr death squad. In 2013, he and an accomplice were sentenced in absentia for the abduction and murder of 18 people, including nine university professors, six journalists, and three physicians.

Egyptian cleric Wagdi Ghoneim was the chairman of NAIF at the turn of the century. In 2005, he agreed to deportation to Qatar after U.S. authorities were concerned about his potential connections to terrorist organizations. Ghoneim has called Osama bin Laden a “martyred heroic mujahid” and is now closely tied to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He has been banned from entering several countries due to his radicalism.

Another former NAIF board member is Siraj Wahhaj, who was infamously listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Wahhaj testified in defense of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, who served a life sentence for being the mastermind behind terrorist plots in the United States.

What else?

The North American Imam Federation is perhaps best known as the group that allegedly planned and staged the “flying imams” incident. After a 2006 NAIF conference, several imams connected to the group were booted from a domestic flight after exhibiting bizarre, threatening behavior, terrifying fellow passengers. NAIF and the Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) showcased the incident as a prime example of America’s supposed problem with “Islamophobia.”

President Trump’s immigration moratorium, blocking non-citizens from coming into the U.S. from the six terror havens of Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Libya, will go into effect next week, barring a successful legal challenge by Elshikh and Hawaii or other actors.

(For more from the author of “The Radical Ties of the Imam Behind the Trump Immigration Lawsuit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5440603914_97c06d6eaa_b (3)

Oops! Leaked DHS Report PROVES Trump’s Point on Immigration

Amidst the national debate over the deep state embedded in the intelligence bureaucracies sabotaging the Trump presidency, career DHS officials came out with a report trying to undermine the president’s immigration moratorium from high-risk countries. The report, which was conveniently leaked to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last week, elicited the following headlines from the liberal media:

“In leaked document, the case for Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ takes another huge hit” (Greg Sargent, Washington Post).

“DHS report undermines President Trump’s travel ban: Most foreign-born terrorists become radicalized in the US” (Salon.com).

“Homeland Security Still Doesn’t Think Donald Trump’s Immigration Order Will Work” (Huffington Post).

To begin with, if such a high-profile DHS intel report was leaked to MSNBC, why was the individual responsible for it not fired over the weekend? Where is DHS Sec. John Kelly? He was one of the first members of the Cabinet to be confirmed and should already have control over the department.

Moreover, the eight-page report actually proves the thesis we’ve formulated since my column began here at CR.

Here is the punchline of the report: “We assess that most foreign-born, US-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns.”

There you have it, folks! What this means is that the immigration threat from the Middle East is even more severe than what Trump is making it out to be, not less problematic. His detractors are trying to use this report, and clearly it was published and leaked under such a premise — to show that there is no way to vet individuals for terror links. As such, they contend that the immigration moratorium is worthless. This is a classic straw man argument. In fact, the report demonstrates why only a moratorium can help.

As we’ve said ad nauseam, the problem we face with mass migration from the Middle East is a lot more ubiquitous than a mere few individuals with known ties to official terror groups. It is a civilization problem – importing mass numbers of Sharia-adherent immigrants to the West who will then cluster in communities and cultivate a climate that sows resentment for the host country among their children. This is the enduring lesson of Europe, and yes, this is the reality demonstrated by the 88 cases of radicalized Muslim immigrant families analyzed by this DHS report.

When most of these terrorists came to the U.S. at a young age, they probably looked as cute as any other kid. There was nothing to vet … other than the parents adhering fervently to Shariah. What history has demonstrated is that the parents who are focused on settling down usually do not commit terror attacks. For example, the father will open up a deli shop in Dearborn, Mich., or Brooklyn, for example, and live a pretty quiet life. However, they will raise their kids under a culture that, by and large, is incompatible with western values. This sows resentment among the younger generation, which becomes even more disenchanted with the host country (particularly with the advent of cyber-jihad).

This is the story of the Chattanooga shooter who was brought here from Kuwait when he was 2, the New York/New Jersey bomber (Ahmad Khan Rahami) who came here from Afghanistan when he was 12, and the Ohio State Somali vehicular jihadist who came here as a teenager. As the report itself recognized, most of the 88 cases they studied involved a suspect who was less than 16 years old when admitted to the country.

Therefore, this DHS report, much like a broken clock that is right twice a day, accidentally stumbled across the truth: We have an assimilation problem with many immigrants from the Middle East. The last thing you want to do, then, is to bring in more from the Middle East – to the tune of 160,000 a year – when we badly need to assimilate the record numbers that already migrated here over the past 15 years.

The real number to focus on is not the few people who will have a known paper trail linking them to terrorists from day one, but the 90-plus percent from countries like Iraq who subscribe to Shariah. That is why it was such a mistake for Trump to remove Iraq from the list; Trump should have cited this report as reason to expand the moratorium to places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Undoubtedly, there is also an element of vetting that is important — for example, in the case of Tashfeen Malik (one of the San Bernardino shooters). She should have never been admitted from Pakistan; her social media accounts and her basic biography reeked of Islamic supremacy. Then again, the people drafting these DHS reports don’t believe in vetting the supremacist mentality that cultivates the climate of terror.

Nobody disputes that if you only vet for known ISIS ties up front, many people will slip through the net. Yet, at the same time, it completely misses the point. Just ask our friends in Europe. (For more from the author of “Oops! Leaked DHS Report PROVES Trump’s Point on Immigration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

27204425204_6e1d028c87_b

Trump Reform Could Admit More Self-Sufficient Immigrants

President Donald Trump’s gesture for bipartisan immigration reform seemed to call for replacing the current legal immigration system that prioritizes family reunification with an economic merit-based system.

If that’s the direction, then some pro-enforcement groups seem willing to listen.

“Right now, just 16 percent of illegal immigrants came because they were sponsored by an employer,” Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Signal. “Ample research shows that immigrants admitted for employment are more likely to be self-sufficient, an economic plus, and on balance less of a fiscal burden.”

Critics of the focus on family reunification say it has led to chain migration.

Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and David Perdue, R-Ga., last month introduced the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, which would rebalance the legal immigration system toward employment-based visas and immediate family households, rather than extended family members.

The sponsors project that if enacted, the legislation would lower overall immigration to 637,960 people per year, and to 530,958 immigrants in the second year. That’s down from 1.05 million immigrants admitted in 2015.

During his address to a joint session of Congress, Trump noted that Canada and Australia are among countries with a merit-based immigration system.

“It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially,” Trump said. “I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.”

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill., chairman of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who dismissed the view that the president was making a bipartisan appeal for reform, said what Trump spoke about would limit Hispanics coming to the United States.

“[Trump] envisions an immigration system where quotas for Ph.D.s are set in Washington and the multitude of immigrants who built this country and who keep it flourishing would not be welcome,” Gutiérrez said in a statement. “The Latino community won’t forget and won’t let that happen. And the millions of allies we have who support immigration as a fundamental and integral aspect of America’s greatness will not forget either.”

Vaughan said that numbers of immigrants admitted to the U.S. are an issue even in a merit-based system.

“We have to be careful with the numbers and we don’t want American workers to be displaced,” she said.

A merit-based green card system would differ from a guest worker program because it would be more stringent for both the employer and the immigrant in proving they have skills and can contribute to the economy, Vaughan said.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the president is not compromising his principles.

“One of the network anchors said, if anyone can get a deal, it would be [Trump]. Obviously, he was pleased with that, because it’s true,” Spicer said. “He recognizes that a comprehensive solution has alluded our nation for a long time and it’s a big problem. If he can get it consistent with his principles, he will.”

In response to a later question, Spicer said: “I think he was making it clear that the results of our immigration system don’t yield one that reflects a merit-based one.”

Congress broadened the merit-based system in 1990, but left the family reunification-based system in place. A merit-based system should replace the family-based system in order to be more effective, Vaughan said.

If illegal immigrants could prove they have a particular skill set, this might open the door for a limited, economic-based amnesty, or legalized status for illegal immigrants, Vaughan said. However, this would be an economic-based granting of legal status to those who can be self-sufficient.

“Democrats might be on board if they saw a chance to get something in return, like amnesty,” Vaughan said. “It may be reasonable to look at, but it would require legislation.”

The chief focus is on legal immigration, though, and tackling the problem of chain migration, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform.

“It would be about families and children, instead of siblings, which brings the biggest pressure, because those siblings bring spouses, who bring in-laws,” Mehlman told The Daily Signal. “The point is to have an objective assessment for letting people enter the country, who will complement, not compete with, our workforce.”

Mehlman noted the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in the 1990s that called for limits on immediate nuclear family and employment-based immigration. The commission was chaired by former Rep. Barbara Jordan, D-Texas, and was endorsed by then-President Bill Clinton. (For more from the author of “Trump Reform Could Admit More Self-Sufficient Immigrants” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

1280px-US_Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement_arrest

Trump Targets Criminals, Late Arrivals in Immigration Enforcement

The Department of Homeland Security will make prioritization key in its beefed-up enforcement of the border and the interior of the country—removing criminals first, while more recent arrivals will also face expedited removal.

However, critics call it “mass deportation” that will face a legal challenge.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly released implementation memos to agencies to enforce President Donald Trump’s executive orders he signed in January. A key new policy is expanding the number of illegal immigrants subject to “expedited removal” procedures if an illegal immigrant can’t provide evidence they have been in the country for more than two years.

Among other matters, the memos call for moving forward on building a border wall, hiring more Customs and Border Protection agents to stop illegal border crossings, and adding more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to police the interior. Also, the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office was established within ICE.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the actions Tuesday demonstrate the administration is serious about making the country safer.

“The message from this White House and from DHS is that those people who are in this country and pose a threat to our public safety and committed a crime will be the first to go and we will aggressively be making sure that occurs,” Spicer said during the White House press briefing.

The DHS actions are a welcome change from the Obama administration that interfered with immigration enforcement, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a pro-enforcement group. But, Mehlman added, the emphasis on prioritizing dangerous illegal immigrants is “a lot like the Obama administration.”

“The past administration put a priority on criminals and those that just entered the United States,” Mehlman told The Daily Signal. “The difference is that the Obama administration just focused on recent arrivals at the border, and sent them back. That’s important, but we also need serious interior enforcement.”

The policies won’t survive a court challenge, said Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“These memos confirm that the Trump administration is willing to trample on due process, human decency, the well-being of our communities, and even protections for vulnerable children, in pursuit of a hyperaggressive mass deportation policy,” Jadwat said in a public statement. “However, President Trump does not have the last word here—the courts and the public will not allow this un-American dream to become reality.”

More than likely, the implementation orders have solid legal ground, said Josh Blackman, an associate professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.

“There is probably not a strong challenge to the order Secretary Kelly signed, but a question of due process could come up regarding expedited removal,” Blackman told The Daily Signal. “If you’re picked up at the border and turned around there usually is no question. Expanding that to being picked up at the interior, that could arguably imply a stronger connection to the U.S. and require due process for removal.”

A legal challenge would have little merit, but doesn’t necessarily mean the administration will prevail, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“It is well within the administration’s authority, but anyone can file a lawsuit, and that won’t stop errant judges from acting,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

Spicer stressed that the administration is only enforcing immigration law as it would any other law.

Our job, especially here at the White House, isn’t to call balls and strikes and say this person only violated part of the law. If this was any other subject, if this was tax evasion and we said, ‘Well, they really only cheated on their taxes a little,’ you wouldn’t be saying should they be going to prison or should they be getting a fine. At some point laws are laws. If people have a problem with the law, whether it’s at the local, state, or federal, then we should petition our lawmakers and executives to change it. Our job should not be should this individual not have to abide by the law, should this individual get a pass?

(For more from the author of “Trump Targets Criminals, Late Arrivals in Immigration Enforcement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

VET_7_circle

7 Statutes That CLEARLY Support Trump’s Immigration Executive Order

While nullifying Trump’s immigration order, the so-called “judges” were conniving in their omission of any statute. As I noted last week, every part of Trump’s order is covered by multiple statutes. This week, I found two more portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that support his actions.

Let’s review:

1. INA 212(f) [8 U.S.C. §1182(f)]

Gives the president at-will and absolute power to shut off any immigrant and non-immigrant visa category for any period of time if he determines — subject to nobody else’s review — that it’s in the national interests.

This single statute covers every aspect of the order.

2. INA 215(a)(1)[8 U.S.C. §1185(a)(1)]

Conditions entry or exit of any alien (immigrant and nonimmigrant) to “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”

No limitations are placed on this power, and it was used by Jimmy Carter during the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

3. 8 U.S.C. §1184(a)(1)

Conditions the “admission to the United States of any alien as a nonimmigrant” to “such time and under such conditions as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe.”

4. 8 U.S. Code §1735

Passed unanimously by Congress in 2002, requires the president to cut off visas to state sponsors of terrorism, which at the time of passage, included five of the seven countries included in Trump’s travel ban.

Trump could easily add Somalia and Yemen to the terror state list and reinstate Iraq and Libya – and it would all be covered under this statute.

5. 8 U.S.C. §1157(a)(2)

Grants the president full authority to set the cap and geographic intake of refugees. Obama used it to the detriment of the country; Trump can use it to protect our security.

After further researching the INA, I found two more applicable provisions:

6. 8 U.S. Code §1201(h)(i)

Makes it clear that the issuance of a visa does not “entitle any alien” to be “admitted [into] the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law.”

Thus if the president, using the other authorities and his war powers, chooses to suspend particular visas, those individuals are inadmissible under law. Furthermore, the statute continues by giving plenary power to customs officials to revoke visas at any time.

[T]he consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation.
What’s more, this provision of law, which passed the Senate 96-2 in 2004, explicitly stripped the courts of any jurisdiction to adjudicate the revocation of visas for anyone seeking entry into the country (as opposed to someone living here who is being deported).

The jurisdiction-stripping provision includes even a basic habeas corpus petition. How in the world can the courts be allowed to get involved in this matter? It is unconstitutional. I’m glad to see that the state of Texas has made this argument in its amicus brief against the liberal states suing the Trump administration.

7. 8 U.S. Code §1253(d)

Requires the secretary of State to cut off both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to foreign nationals of countries that refuse to repatriate their illegal or criminal aliens. According to the Immigration Reform Law Institute, as reported by The Washington Times, 27 countries qualify for a visa cutoff, including five of the seven countries targeted under Trump’s order (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan).

Accordingly, not only is Trump triple and quadruple covered by statute for every aspect of his immigration order (not to mention his own foreign affairs powers), he is actually required to cut off visas pursuant to several laws. Moreover, the courts have absolutely no authority to even adjudicate a case second-guessing a president’s action with regards to foreign nationals seeking entry into this country. Politics aside, the law is the law.

Yet where is Congress? Where are GOP leaders rushing to join Steve King in condemning the courts even in a non-binding resolution for their display of civil disobedience?

Make no mistake about it. There is not one morsel of legitimacy to these court opinions. They are engaging in civil disobedience and nullification against our most foundational laws governing security and sovereignty of the entire federal union.

As Robert Bork observed during a time when the courts weren’t nearly as rogue as they are today: “To the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.” (For more from the author of “7 Statutes That CLEARLY Support Trump’s Immigration Executive Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Protest_march_against_Donald_Trump_(30386000004)

Rescind the Executive Order — and Replace It With Many Tougher Ones

President Trump needs to deny the Left a victory over his immigration executive order. The court challenge heard by the infamously unconstitutional and extremist 9th Circuit threatens to set a precedent that will codify open borders and leave the president powerless to protect us. Trump can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and deny the Left their unconscionable and unconstitutional attempted power grab by rescinding this EO and issuing stronger multiple replacements as stand alone orders.

The president cannot lose here. We must protect our borders; keep out the terrorists and rein in out-of-control immigration. It is the signal issue that got him elected. It is also the signal action needed to save this country from the Left’s malevolent intentions. The Left is attempting to subvert our country by simply replacing its population with a more malleable, sympathetic one. Unlike the immigrants of yesteryear, today’s are largely illiterate, welfare-dependent, unwilling to learn our language and definitely hostile to American culture and traditions. And while they are in many cases fleeing conditions created by their countries’ socialist policies, they nonetheless bring socialist ideas with them. As our country has become more “multi-cultural”, it has drifted ever leftward.

This was no mistake.

President Trump can and must rescind this executive order. Despite it’s hesitation, the [en banc] 9th Circuit is virtually guaranteed to agree with the ruling by District Judge Robert Chambers halting Trump’s immigration ban. As the initial complaint was not justified by immigration law, which provides the president clear authority to do what he did, it would set a horrible precedent in eroding the president’s ability to protect the nation. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will likely lose. Justice Kennedy will side with the leftists. With an 8 person court, even a 4-4 decision would mean the 9th Circuit ruling holds. Even with Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, a likely Kennedy defection would mean 5-4 for the Left. And support for Trump’s position is not even certain with Gorsuch.

Rescinding the EO would be a victory, not a defeat. First, it would prevent the Left from getting a major win in court that would alter permanently a president’s ability to control our borders. The lawsuit and likely favorable court ruling defy immigration law. They should not be allowed to get away with it. As abominable as it is, the current state of enforcement is better than what would result. The Left would like to thwart Trump’s agenda with endless lawsuits. Their victory here will encourage much more of the same.

But more importantly, Trump should reissue a score of executive orders that address the same issues as the current one, but make them even more muscular. If the Left is going to play dirty like this, make them pay for it. Give them something they will dislike even more and force them to fight many battles instead of just one. Perhaps that will cool their ardor for obstructionist lawsuits and nationwide, Democrat funded violence that threatens to drag this country into civil war:

1. Replace the 3 month ban on immigration from seven terrorist-producing nations with a 6 month ban on the same seven nations. President Obama issued a six-month ban on refugees from Iraq in 2011. He did so after two Kentucky-based Iraqi refugees were discovered to be former insurgent IED makers. So much for our supposedly infallible vetting process. Despite much-ballyhooed improvements, the current vetting procedure places almost all emphasis on processing refugees as quickly as possible, with few, if any national security safeguards. The seven nations were also first identified by the Obama DHS.

2. Consider expanding the list to all nations of terrorism concern. The State Department keeps a list which formally includes State Sponsors of Terrorism: Syria, Sudan, Iran, and Countries of Particular Concern: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Those countries on the DHS list not identified by the State Department, i.e. Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Iraq, should be added to State’s list.

3. Extend suspension of the refugee admissions program (USRAP) to a full year as requested by numerous members of Congress and cities all over the country begging for relief. (It now only lasts 120 days). President Trump does not need an executive order for this. He can simply send a letter to Congress, informing it of his intentions. Refugee caps for FY 2017 would be reduced to zero.

4. Issue all other components of the current EO as separate, standalone orders. Many of these are not challenged by the court in this EO, but are desperately needed. For example: ending the Obama administration’s insane policy of allowing U.S. entry of foreign nationals who have aided terrorists, focusing on those refugee minorities facing the worst persecution (e.g. the Christians that Obama ignored), enacting uniform screening standards for all immigrants, suspending the visa waiver program, completing the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System, visa reciprocity, and data transparency.

Trump needs to rescind this executive order to snatch victory out of the Left’s intolerable hands. He needs to replace it with others that will punish the Left for their vicious, relentless, unconstitutional and often illegal tactics, and force them to fight every single item, piece by piece.

Posted with permission of the author.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U.S. Post Office & Courthouse, 7th & Mission Sts, SF

No Longer a Nation of Laws, Ninth Circuit Usurps Presidential Powers on Immigration Ban

San Francisco’s federal appeals court asserted a novel theory on Thursday to claim jurisdiction over the legal challenge to Executive Order 13769, affirming the lower court’s order halting President Trump’s temporary travel-restriction policy. . .

The Ninth Circuit went on to reject several of the tenuous theories the states of Washington and Minnesota asserted to claim standing to bring this lawsuit. Nonetheless, a three-judge panel of the court adopted one of the novel theories asserted by the state, holding that, “as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.” Some of those students are effected by the immigration order.

President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Congress has plenary authority over all immigration decisions, and that Congress had delegated complete discretion to the president in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to make such decisions, especially when national security was at stake. . .

[Listen to Joe Miller Hammer the Ninth Circuit:]

The court held that the executive order likely violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, holding that the “Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel”. . .

The court also gave at least some credence to what many considered one of the most tenuous claims in the lawsuit, the one asserting that appearing to prefer Christianity over Islam for immigrants violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. (Read more from “No Longer a Nation of Laws, Ninth Circuit Usurps Presidential Powers on Immigration Ban” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

16652895246_87247deddb_b (2)

Last-Minute Lawyer Faulted for ‘Poor Job’ Defending Trump’s Immigration Order

The lawyer who argued the case for President Donald Trump’s executive order designed to bar terrorists from entering the country is the target of sharp criticism for his performance Tuesday night before a federal appeals court.

“I’m not sure I’m convincing the court,’’ August E. Flentje says.

Flentje, a career Justice Department lawyer, took the case after two top lawyers in the Trump administration recused themselves.

“I’m not sure I’m convincing the court,’’ Flentje said out loud at one point in arguing for the executive order temporarily restricting travel to the U.S. from seven terrorism-prone nations.

During the Obama administration, then-Attorney General Eric Holder honored Flentje for helping to draft the legal case for same-sex marriage and for terrorism suspects being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which the administration sought to close.

When the three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pressed Flentje for evidence connecting the seven countries to terrorism, he said, “These proceedings have been moving quite fast, and we’re doing the best we can.”

He said the government hadn’t included all the evidence yet. He cited some Somalis in the United States who he said were connected to the al-Shabab terrorist group.

Judge Michelle Friedland asked, “Can you point us to where in the record you are referring?”

Flentje responded: “It is not in the record.”

Flentje delivered a weak argument that likely could affect the outcome of the case, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“It was a very poor job. It’s the worst presentation I can recall seeing by a Justice Department attorney,” von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer, told The Daily Signal.

Justice Department spokeswoman Nicole A. Navas said the department wanted to avoid any conflicts of interest after the former employer of two top Trump administration lawyers filed a brief on behalf of opponents in the suit against the president’s executive order.

The acting solicitor general and acting assistant attorney general “have refrained from signing this brief, out of an abundance of caution, in light of a last-minute filing of an amicus brief by their former law firm,” Navas told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement.

“The department has no additional comment than what was stated in the government’s brief,” she added on the question of why Flentje argued the case in one of the nation’s most liberal circuits.

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday placed a temporary restraining order, or TRO, on enforcement of the week-old executive order. It put a nationwide pause on carrying out the order.

Flentje’s job Tuesday night was to make the legal case for Trump’s order on vetting immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries that have been terrorism hot spots.

“There was a lot of back and forth in that entire argument,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Wednesday in response to a question on Flentje’s presentation and whether Trump was concerned about it.

“I think he did what he had to do to, represent the president’s case and represent the administration’s case on the TRO,” Spicer said of Flentje before adding of Trump:

He feels very confident on the merits. That’s where his focus has been. So I’m not concerned.

I think the president’s main concern has been … making sure that an executive order that was lawfully executed and [went] through the entire process—remember, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Compliance vetted this order and deemed it was legal. So we can follow this entire process to be sure it was done correctly, constitutionally, legally.

Washington state, later joined by Minnesota, challenged Trump’s executive order, arguing it would harm their states’ tax bases and businesses.

A U.S. district judge in Seattle did not rule on the merits of the case, but determined Washington state had standing and issued the temporary restraining order on the executive order. Now, the appeals court is deciding only on the restraining order and not, for now, the actual executive order.

Flentje started work at the Justice Department about 19 years ago, under President Bill Clinton. He continued under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Noel Francisco, the acting solicitor general, and Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, initially were going to represent the Trump administration.

Their decisions to remove their names from the most recent brief and from the case itself came after their former employer, the Jones Day law firm, filed an amicus brief against Trump’s executive order. Jones Day also filed a brief seeking to remove the two lawyers from the case, contending their involvement represented a conflict.

Flentje, the special counsel to the assistant attorney general, then became the highest-ranking Justice Department attorney to handle the case.

Interestingly, Jones Day was associated with both the Trump presidential campaign and the Trump transition team. The new president named a former Jones Day lawyer, Don McGahn, as White House counsel, the legal news site Above the Law noted.

The person filing the brief against Trump’s executive order now could pose ethical questions since the Jones Day firm has had such close ties to Trump in the past, von Spakovsky said.

“The opposing brief of the executive order is a very serious conflict,” von Spakovsky said.

In 2013, Holder issued the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service to a team, including Flentje, that made the legal case that the Defense of Marriage Act, a Clinton-era law recognizing marriage as the union of a man and woman, was not constitutional.

In 2010, Holder’s Justice Department honored Flentje and other lawyers with the Attorney General’s Award for Excellence in Furthering the Interests of U.S. National Security. The award was for their work on 240 appeals involving detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects.

(For more from the author of “Last-Minute Lawyer Faulted for ‘Poor Job’ Defending Trump’s Immigration Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.