Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Monday marks a year since the tragedy of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death while on a hunting trip in west Texas, and his legal insight remains as poignant and pertinent as the day he left this world.

The Ninth Circuit court has recently come under fire from all sides for their “absurd,” “dangerous,” and “damningly silly” ruling against President Donald Trump’s travel suspension. And the current dustup between the judiciary and the executive — as well as the impending nomination fight over Scalia’s successor — raises the question on the anniversary of his death: What would Justice Scalia have to say about all this?

While we will never know the answer to that on this side of paradise, the late jurist’s dissent in a previous immigration case might offer some insight.

The case was Zadvydas v. Davis in 2001. The question before the court was whether or not the executive branch had a right to detain an alien set for deportation indefinitely, or if the 90-day detention period created some sort of “right” to be released back into the general population.

While the 5-4 majority ruled that the detention period was limited to 90 days, Scalia dissented (joined by Clarence Thomas), arguing that the rights of aliens to be deported run along the same lines as those at the border seeking entry.

Here’s what Scalia had to say about both:

“Insofar as a claimed legal right to release into this country is concerned. “An alien under final order of removal stands on an equal footing with an inadmissible alien at the threshold of entry: He has no such right.

“We are offered no justification why an alien under a valid and final order of removal – which has totally extinguished whatever right to presence in this country he possessed – has any greater due process right to be released into the country than an alien at the border seeking entry.”

Scalia makes this point its simplest, by offering: “[A]n inadmissible alien at the border has no right to be in the United States.”

In the case, Scalia also goes back to Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent from in Shaughnessy v. United States in 1953, which Justice Frankfurter joined:

“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. Nothing in the Constitution requires admission or sufferance of aliens hostile to our scheme of government.”

This, of course, doesn’t mean that someone’s human rights are contingent upon their citizenship, but that but that there is no such thing as a right for a person to enter the country of which they are not a citizen. “[Another previous immigration case] at least involved aliens under final order of deportation,” explained Scalia in the Zadvydas dissent. “But all it held is that they could not be subjected to the punishment of hard labor without a judicial trial. I am sure they cannot be tortured, as well–but neither prohibition has anything to do with their right to be released into the United States.”

Yet the Ninth Circuit has ruled that every potential migrant in a terror-infested warzone of a failed state now has constitutional due process rights to come in whenever they want, that government institutions somehow suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” as a result, and that campaign statements are fair game in evaluating a law.

A year since his passing, Scalia’s absence has left an unmistakable void on American jurisprudence, and time will only tell if Trump’s Supreme Court pick will prove up to the task of following such a titanic presence on the bench.

One thing is certain, however: As the federal circuits slip further and further into absolute legal nonsense like that seen last week, Justice Antonin Scalia’s witty, commonsensical clarity will only be missed more and more. (For more from the author of “Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

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

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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.

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

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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.

Here’s a Preview of Where Transanity Is Leading Us

/0 Comments/in , , /by

You had to know this was going to happen, and it did, in Scotland. An imprisoned man who identifies as a woman got transferred to a women’s prison, only to be transferred to a men’s prison because he was having sex with the female inmates. Welcome to the world of transanity.

The man in question, referred to in an article on the UK’s Metro only as Paris Green, was found guilty (along with two of his friends) of torturing and murdering another man, for which he was sentenced to at least 18 years in prison. A story on Breitbart gives his original name as Peter Laing, noting that this is not the first time he was accused of inappropriate conduct with female inmates.

Remarkably, in keeping with today’s ridiculous PC journalistic standards, the Metro article refers to Laing/Green in female terms only, with lines like this: “A transgender murderer has been moved from a women’s prison following claims she had sex with female inmates”; and, “She was jailed for 18 years” (my emphasis).

And then, the most telling line of all, from an anonymous source: “The women want sex and Paris is the only person who can give it to them.”

But of course, because Paris is Peter, a biological male, with male private parts and a male sex drive and a male attraction to women. In other words, as the only male inmate in a women’s prison, he’s the obvious (and only) choice for male-female inmate sex. Identifying as a female certainly has its perks.

Truly Transgender — Or Manipulator?

Not surprisingly, the sister of the man killed by Laing/Green questions the sincerity of his female identity, noting, “It’s costing the Prison Service a fortune moving him from jail to jail.” (She’s referring to the fact that this is the second time he’s been moved from a female prison for allegedly having sex with the female inmates. And remember: He has not yet had sex change surgery, so he remains a functionally biological male.)

The bereaved sister added, “The whole thing is a joke. We don’t believe he really wants a sex change. He’s just trying to manipulate the system and the tax payer is footing the bill.”

Of course, only God and Laing/Green know the truth about this. Is he genuinely confused about his gender identity, or is he cynically exploiting the system? In any case, let’s remember that it is transgender activists who constantly remind us that gender identity is different than sexual orientation.

In other words, while a gay man is attracted to other men, a man who identifies as a woman (referred to today as a transgender woman) need not be attracted to men. This means that while identifying as a woman, he is still attracted to women, hence Peter/Paris’s sexual activity with other women.

Naturally, transgender activists have an answer for this as well, telling us that a man who identifies as a woman but is attracted to women is actually a lesbian in a man’s body, in which case his true identity is as a lesbian. Is your head spinning yet?

Back to Reality

Coming back to reality, this unfortunate lesson from the Scottish prison system reminds us of an inconvenient truth that is often ignored in the debate about transgender access to bathrooms and locker rooms.

Let’s say that 16-year-old John identifies as a girl but is heterosexual, and he wants to play on the girls’ sports team and share their bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower stalls (a “right” for which the Obama administration fought vigorously). That means that John, who perhaps wants to be called Jane, will still be attracted to girls — the very ones he’ll be playing with and undressing with and showering with.

This doesn’t mean he’s a sexual predator. It just means that he’s a male teenager, naturally attracted to females, which is one reason why he’s supposed to use the boys’ bathroom, locker room, and shower stalls.

Yet to say this is to be transphobic and insensitive.

Similarly, let’s say that 30-year-old Charlie, who identifies as Charlene but remains a biological, heterosexual male, wants to change in the ladies’ locker room at the YMCA. This means that Charlie will be checking out the ladies there, since he’s heterosexual, and if the women complain to management that they feel uncomfortable, they will be branded troublemakers.

I’m aware, of course, that there are people who struggle deeply with gender identity issues, people who find themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to which bathroom or locker room to use, people who are doing their best to fit in and ignore the people looking at them as if they were some kind of freak.

As I’ve said many times before, I do not minimize their struggles and I long to see them find true and lasting wholeness. This recent report from Scotland, however, reminds us of the upside-down world in which we live, one where a biological, heterosexual male who identifies as a woman gets kicked out of a women’s prison for having sex with the female inmates and is still referred to as “she” throughout.

This societal madness must stop. There must surely be a better way. (For more from the author of “Here’s a Preview of Where Transanity Is Leading Us” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

You’ve Heard People Compare Trump to Hitler. So We Asked a Woman Who Was Born in Nazi Germany…

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A popular talking point on the left is that Donald Trump has things in common with Hitler.

But is this the case? Independent Journal Review decided to speak to a woman born in Nazi Germany about the comparison . . .

[Inga] Andrews said:

“What is going on in this country is giving me chills. Trump is not like Hitler. Just because a leader wants order doesn’t mean they’re like a dictator.

What reminds me more of Hitler than anything else isn’t Trump, it’s the destruction of freedom of speech on the college campuses — the agendas fueled by the professors.”

(Read more from “You’ve Heard People Compare Trump to Hitler. So We Asked a Woman Who Was Born in Nazi Germany…” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Steven Crowder Nails the Perfect 4-Letter Word for Bernie Sanders

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 17%) said a lot of crazy things during Tuesday night’s CNN debate on Obamacare.

But the worst was when he essentially told a small business owner he doesn’t care about her business; he’s going to force her to pay for her employee’s health insurance even if she can’t afford it.

Here’s the highlight from Steven Crowder’s live stream (caution – profanity):

At least Sanders is honest about how he would screw small business to advance his ideology. Most progressives have to lie about that to get elected. (For more from the author of “Steven Crowder Nails the Perfect 4-Letter Word for Bernie Sanders” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Human Trafficking and Slavery: How Flight Attendants Are Saving Lives Miles in the Air

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A young teenager with greasy blond hair sat on an Alaska Airlines flight. She was disheveled and kept her head down when addressed, refusing to answer. A well-dressed older man sat beside her. He made it clear by controlling conversation with others that he was in charge. The whole situation raised a red flag for a flight attendant named Shelia Fedrick.

Fedrick gave the girl a message instructing her to go to the restroom, where she had left a note on the mirror. The disheveled teen wrote on the note that she needed help. Fedrick’s suspicions confirmed, she quickly informed the pilot, who then called the police. The suspect was arrested when the plane landed on charges of human trafficking.

4 Million Trafficked

The United Nations estimates that 4 million women and children are trafficked each year for prostitution or labor. The human trafficking business brings in about $32 billion per year. The widespread problem involves countries all over the world, including the United States — and flight attendants are on the front line in this battle.

When Sheila Fredrick saved the young woman, she did so on her own. Flight attendants got no official training for how to spot sex traffickers and victims. Now they are instructed on how to spot human traffickers and ways to intervene.

Former airline flight attendant Nancy Rivard founded Airline Ambassadors International (AAI) in 1996 to provide for orphans and vulnerable children. In 2009, AAI began providing human trafficking awareness training at 40 U.S. airports and other airports around the world.

Rivard hopes to teach people to think like Shelia. She had the sense that something just wasn’t right. The contrast between the younger disheveled teen and the well-dressed older man made her stop and think. Other signs to look for, according to Rivard, include someone who:

Is being controlled

Is bruised, battered or underfed

Won’t answer questions or make eye contact

Has few or no personal items

Is unusually submissive to the person accompanying him or her

Can’t get away from the person with them, even to go to the restroom

Doesn’t appear to know where he or she is going

The AAI provides seminars with trainers, some of whom are survivors of human trafficking. The in-depth training seminars are geared toward the travel industry, law enforcement, transportation and universities and institutions that offer tour and travel management classes. AAI’s curriculum has been adopted by the International Tourism Management Institute.

If You See Something …

American Airlines, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, told The Stream that their flight crews receive training offered by The U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The DHS offers training on spotting human trafficking through the DHS Blue Campaign.

“The training is … part of their flight manual, which is regularly reviewed,” AA Media Relations said. “On our employee portal, we link to DHS training on how employees can spot possible instances of human trafficking.” American Airlines also supports AAI through donations, communications support and pass privileges (donated by employees).

Because of Fedrick’s and Rivard’s experiences, the AAI provides training and also works closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Blue Campaign to combat human trafficking and prevent more stories like theirs.

The young girl Fedrick rescued? Fedrick keeps in touch with her. She’s now in college and worries about her exams rather than her exploitation. Fedrick’s motto is now: “If you see something, say something.” (For more from the author of “Human Trafficking and Slavery: How Flight Attendants Are Saving Lives Miles in the Air” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘The Future Is Female’: Hillary Clinton’s First Post-Election Statement Reminds Us Why She Lost

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton delivered one of her first public statements since losing the Nov. 8 presidential election. In a video addressed to those attending the MAKERS women’s conference in California, Clinton boldly declares, “The future is female.”

The former first lady praised the participants of last month’s anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington and encouraged women to “be bold” amid the fear and uncertainty that apparently plague women in America.

“Despite all the challenges we face, I remained convinced that, yes, the future is female,” Clinton asserts.

Really? This is how Hillary chooses to break the relative silence of her post-election pity party? By telling women to fight sexism with more sexism? Give us a break!

Conservatives on social media had similar reactions:

As Ben Shapiro so eloquently wrote Tuesday for The Daily Wire, “Women in America in 2017 are the luckiest women in world history, and are not at a systemic disadvantage to men. But Hillary continues to promulgate a victim narrative that does not align with the facts.”

He continued:

No, the future isn’t female. The future is free. And that distinction eluded Hillary during the campaign, which is why she lost. Identity politics can be lucrative business, but it isn’t the truth: the truth is that we all seek a future in which women around the globe have the same freedoms women in America do (although Hillary did little to forward that mission as Secretary of State). Labeling the future “female” is as benighted as labeling it “male” or “black” or “gay.” The future has yet to be decided, and we should all pray that the future isn’t owned by any particular social group.

Hillary, for the future, here’s a tip on how to win votes: Don’t isolate half of the population with contemptuous feminist mantras that needlessly stir dissension and deny reality. Remember, #LoveTrumpsHate. (For more from the author of “‘The Future Is Female’: Hillary Clinton’s First Post-Election Statement Reminds Us Why She Lost” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Want to Take Back Our Sovereignty? Start by Breaking up the Ninth Circuit

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The spectacle of the U.S. government having to grovel before the Ninth Circuit to determine whether we are a sovereign nation or not should draw attention to another important initiative: the effort to break up the tyrannical Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.

Believe it or not, the courts did not create themselves. Congress has plenary control over lower courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress can abolish the lower courts altogether and reroute their cases to state courts. Every aspect of the court system’s structure — administrative procedures, rules of adjudication, methods of interpretation, and logistics of proceedings — can be regulated by Congress in any way. As such, it goes without saying that Congress can, as it has done in the past, modify the geographical jurisdiction of an existing circuit.

The Ninth Circuit cesspool

The time has come to strip the Ninth Circuit down to size. This court is by far the most anti-constitutional circuit amidst a federal judiciary where the majority of the circuits don’t respect the Constitution as written. Most of the members of the Ninth have literally supplanted the written Constitution for an ever elastic set of ethos that are anchored to nothing more than the political values of these unelected judges at the time they woke up that day. Most importantly, what they have done to the sovereign state of Arizona is outrageous. Congress owes it to the good citizens of the Grand Canyon State to free them of the clutches of judicial tyranny.

To begin with, putting politics aside, the Ninth Circuit — which includes Alaska, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana — is too big. As of the end of FY 2016, there were 13,334 pending appeals before the Ninth Circuit, more than twice the amount of the second busiest circuit (the Fifth) and more than ten times as much as the adjacent Tenth Circuit. The idea of breaking up the Ninth goes back respected figures like current Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a native Arizonan. Not to mention the fact that the Ninth Circuit is, by far, the most reversed appeals court in the country, making Anthony Kennedy look like James Madison in comparison.

To that end, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. (A, 0%) has followed in the tradition of many non-California residents of the Ninth Circuit’s tentacles and introduced H.R. 250 — the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit to California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. A new “twelfth circuit” would be created to oversee appeals from district courts in Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska. Personally, I’d limit the Ninth Circuit to California alone, as was suggested in a bill from a previous Congress, (or better yet, a few square acres in Death Valley), but overall this is a great starting point.

Now is the best time to create a new circuit. With GOP control of the Senate and the filibuster having been eliminated for lower court judges, Trump can flood the zone with originalists (to the extent they exist) and establish the first full circuit that actually follows the law and the Constitution as written. These judges can start fresh, unvarnished from lawless “precedent” of the past.

Cry for Arizona

Arizona is one of the most important states for the judiciary because so many immigration cases emanate from the Grand Canyon State. Words cannot describe how the Ninth Circuit has stolen the sovereignty of Arizona to the detriment of the state’s economy, security, and social cohesion. This officious panel has invalidated every single thing the legislature and the people (through ballot referendum) have done to protect their state. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has forced the state to give driver’s licenses to illegals, offer bail to the most violent criminal aliens, and has blocked the state from requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The Roberts Supreme Court has not lifted a finger to overturn almost any of the dozen or so decisions from the Ninth Circuit [Scalia and Thomas called them out for it]. With at least 630,000 illegals residing in the state, at a cost of $2.4 billion a year, Arizona is left defiled and helpless in protecting its own residents and even their right to vote in untainted elections.

Indeed, the Trump administration and the GOP Congress owe it to the state to provide them with a new federal appeals court. The Constitution [art. IV, § 4.] requires the federal government to “guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.” Arizona has been invaded in the worst way possible and they have lost all republican representation by having their sovereignty and right to self-determination denuded by the unelected and unaccountable Ninth Circuit.

As I observed in Stolen Sovereignty [page 100]:

One of the indictments against King George listed in the Declaration was: “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”

Certainly, when the federal government was created to replace King George as the national authority, they never intended to suppress states from passing laws to protect themselves and their taxpayers, not with a standing army, but at least with their legitimate state law enforcement and power over local issues. In fact, they guaranteed the help of the federal government to protect them from invasion.

In his dissent in Arizona v. United States, Justice Scalia concluded with a rhetorical question: “[W]ould the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? … if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”

Our founders certainly feared that their experiment might result in the collapse into an executive oligarchy, but they certainly never envisioned powers of King George being wielded by a judicial oligarchy, much less a puny lower court existing at the pleasure of Congress. (For more from the author of “Want to Take Back Our Sovereignty? Start by Breaking up the Ninth Circuit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Muslim Country Has Had Its Very Own ‘Muslim Ban’ Since 2011

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Middle East country of Kuwait issued its own “Muslim ban” in 2011, citing the “instability” from several terror hotbeds in the Middle East.

The revelation follows President Donald Trump’s executive order that placed a temporary suspension on visa issuances from the countries of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. The presidential decision has faced extremely heavy scrutiny from across the political spectrum, with opponents claiming it to be inhumane, unconstitutional, and un-American.

The executive order’s proponents say the temporary ban is necessary to protect the country from national security threats, reminding it only affects a tiny portion of Muslim-majority nations.

Kuwait — where Islam is the state religion and 80 percent of the population is Muslim — has had a supposed “Muslim ban” in place since 2011 to stop visa issuances to citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. According to a report in Al Alaraby, individuals from these countries “will not be [AK1] able to obtain visit, tourism or trade” visas. Additionally, “Passport holders from the countries will no lot be allowed to enter the Gulf state while the blanket ban is in place and have been told not to apply to visas,” the report adds.

Kuwait has seen several incidents where foreigners attempted, and succeeded, at executing terrorist attacks. The most deadly occurred in June 2015, when an Islamic State suicide bomber detonated his vest at a Shia mosque in Kuwait City, killing 27 and injuring 227 people.

The five countries listed in the Kuwait visa ban are known breeding grounds for Islamic militants.

War-ravaged Syria and Iraq are home to ISIS, al Qaeda, and several Iran-backed jihadi militia groups. In 2011, when the civil war in Syria first erupted, Kuwait issued a visa ban for all Syrians.

Afghanistan and Pakistan is home to al Qaeda, ISIS,Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and dozens more Sunni terror groups.

And Iran is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror, according to a 2016 report by the Obama State Department.

After this so-called “Muslim ban,” will Kuwait face international blowback of its own from prioritizing its national security? Will this have any effect on the perception of Pres. Trump’s executive order? (For more from the author of “This Muslim Country Has Had Its Very Own ‘Muslim Ban’ Since 2011” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.