This isn’t really a hard case. The Supreme Court should (which doesn’t mean it will) strike down all the blocks on Trump’s immigration bans, in light of the statute that gives the President sweeping authority to restrict immigration:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.
The courts are supposed to determine whether or not new measures are in line with existing laws. That’s all. In light of that law, the courts should all have found Trump’s executive orders on immigration to be perfectly valid. Instead, none of the courts that blocked his executive orders even mentioned this law, not even long enough to explain why it didn’t apply in this case. They all just ignored it and struck down the immigration orders on the basis of Trump’s supposed animus against Muslims: “the executive order ‘speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,’ Judge Roger Gregory wrote.”
In reality, even if it did drip with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination, which it doesn’t, it wouldn’t thereby become illegal. The question of a measure’s legality is not based on the President’s mindset or feelings, but on whether it complies with or violates existing statutes. The above statute clearly gives the President the authority to restrict immigration. And to brush aside so cavalierly the issue of national security, which Trump and his team have made quite clear from the beginning that these executive orders are all about, is irresponsible in the extreme, and could very well end up getting Americans killed.
We can only hope that the Supreme Court will recognize all this and rule in favor of the national interests and security of the American people. But these days, you never know.
“Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Restore Travel Ban,” by Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, June 1, 2017:
President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately reinstate his stalled travel ban, aiming to reverse a string of courtroom losses and setting up the biggest legal showdown of his young presidency.
The request puts a Trump initiative before the Supreme Court for the first time and brings the nine justices into a national drama over claims that the president is targeting Muslims and abusing his authority. The case will give the first indications of how Chief Justice John Roberts’s court will approach one of the most controversial presidents in the nation’s history.
Trump is asking the court to hear arguments on an expedited basis and to reinstate the executive order in the interim.
At issue is Trump’s executive order temporarily barring entry into the U.S. by people from six predominantly Muslim countries in an effort to protect the country from terrorists. The administration asked the court to let the ban take effect while the justices decide whether to review a lower court ruling that said the policy was “steeped in animus and directed at a single religious group.”
As a practical matter, the request for immediate action could determine the fate of the policy, given that the ban would be in effect only for 90 days. The court acts on such requests based on the legal papers without hearing arguments.
A Virginia-based federal appeals court voted 10-3 to uphold a nationwide halt to the policy, saying the travel ban was driven by unconstitutional religious motivations. The majority pointed to Trump’s campaign vow to bar Muslims from entering the country and to the special preference for religious minorities included in an earlier version of the ban. The appeals court’s May 25 opinion also faulted the White House for rushing out the first version without consulting with the national security agencies.
The executive order “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote…..
Walter Sieruk says
First, it needs to be made clear that the job of President Trump is not to have a PC policy of immigration that the left would like. The job and duty of President Trump is to ensure the safety and protection of the American citizens.
Second, concerning the security and safety of America people as well as peaceful visitors this nation and this topic of a travel ban from terrorist hotspot countries in important. This subject had been, somewhat, explained in the book, by Robert Spencer which his entitled THE COMPLETE INFIDEL’S GUIDE TO THE KORAN. For on page 230 it informs the reader “Immigration. Since there is no completely reliable way to tell any given Muslim believer takes the Koran’s dictates about warfare against Infidels literally, immigration of Muslims into the United States should be halted.”
In addition, on page 232 of the same book read “The willful blindness of Western leaders threatens us all, and the very survival of free societies.” Therefore, First, it should not be forgotten that most of the jihadist al Qaeda operatives who were the hijackers and mass murderers came from Saudi Arabia . Second, don’t let them fool you, the many apologists for Islam is will endeavor to set up a smokescreen to hide the reality of the truth about the violence and deadly essence of Islam by making the bogus claim that the al Qaeda operatives mass murderer on 9/11 were not real Muslims and that they were breaking the laws of the Qu ‘ran by their violence and deadly actions.” The apologists for Islam will further make the totally false claim that “Those terrorists on 9/11 were only criminals who hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam for Politics.” Those outrageously false claims are weak attempt of damage control for the image of Islam to the West. For the “holy book” of Islam the Qu ‘ran. For the Qu ‘ran instruct in Sura 9:111. Muslims who are engaging the jihad that “The believer’s fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain ,they kill and are killed “ That’s just what happened on September 11, 2001 the jihadists of al Qaeda “killed and were killed” in those 9/11 jihad attacks against both humankind and America. The Quran also teaches in Sura 9:123 to that jihad –minded Muslims behavior towards non-Muslims “let them find harshness in you…” Those Islamic attacks on 9/11 were indeed very “harsh.” As Sura 2:191 instructs “kill the disbeliever wherever you find them.” That’s a very strange kind of “peaceful religion” if there ever was one. Just to site one more out on many from the Qu ‘ran about the instruction of deadly violence is Sura 47:4. Which instructs “Whenever you encounter unbelievers strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them …” Let’s face it, using jet planes a missiles as those jihadist/ Muslims did of September 11, sure made a greater “slaughter among them” then sword can. Wake up West to the actual nature of Islam before it’s too late.
Walter Sieruk says
Porous borders Mexico had enabled ISIS and Al Qaeda operatives as well as jihadists of other like-minded Islamic terror entities to infiltrate into the United States. Furthermore, illegal immigration from Mexico is dangerous because of crime by gangs of hooligans who enter the US through pours borders with Mexico. As for example, the gang of thugs called MS-13 who originated in El Salvador the come into America through Mexico. Those gangsters commit crimes as murders, rapes, drug dealing. They are also known, for a price, to smuggle jihadists of Al Qaeda in America. In addition, to all this, with illegal immigration also comes higher welfare cost and an increased chances of the spread of contagious diseases, such as TB. Furthermore, with more illegal come more environmental degradation and more urban sprawl. Therefore, there is a great need for a good for a good border control system with a strong tall wall that’s patrolled by armed American officers who may be allowed to uses their guns if they deem it necessary. Along with a good filtering system to let in to the United States only good decent hard working people with visas and not and not gangsters and jihadists. In conclusion all the above may be summed up by the wisdom found in the words of Ronald Reagan when he as, so well, stated “A nation without borders is not a nation.”
miriamrove says
Good. And I hope the courtd are going to do it. Since when federal judges decide what is good or not good for national security. m
Patricia F Koenig says
Those judges had no authority to stop President Trump’s travel ban…especially in view of that statute specifically allowing a president to pause immigration on any class of persons.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Perhaps the biggest single problem in America is that it’s no longer a nation of laws. It’s become a nation of lawyers. The jail break started with FDR, got a boost from LBJ, and was put on steroids with BHO. Gradually the U.S. Constitution has become a reference document rather than the ruling law.
Let’s punch the clock on the slippery slope metaphor going all the way back to Franklin Delano. Law schools have become islands of Marxism, judges have become spot legislators to do the dirty work that elected legislative bodies refuse to do.
Trump is asking the court to enforce the law. It’s a toss up whether it will do that. Islam and jump balls make a very dangerous combination.
Emilie Green says
So, are the non-existent “rights” of non-citizens (many of whom have expressly stated that they mean us harm according to the lights of their political system religion) superior to the established/written protections of American citizens?
Is the US Constitution really a suicide pact?
Stay tuned.
In the meantime, consider the following,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
Don McKellar says
Not only should this Executive Order be found completely constitutional (which it is without question), but there should be immediate and very strongly pursued impeachment proceedings against all judges who acted as enemies to the Constitution by standing in the way based on their own politics. THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB, NOR WHAT THEY HAVE SWORN TO DO. They need to be removed from the bench ASAP as they are trying to legislate from the bench and are enemies of America.
EYESOPEN says
Concur.
Westman says
If SCOTUS rules against established federal law, then there will be no doubt that the court is writing law and the bureaucracy and non-government actors have taken control of the rights of the Executive Branch of government. It would continue to undermine respect for government; seen as an arbitrary governor having undertones of a bannana republic that extends special privileges to certain political and ethnic interests.
Perhaps in an ugly future, the US will be governed by a coalition of movie actors, liberal activists, MSM, and globalist corporations, as a global state ; leaving little necessity for voting or even a Constitution.
Congress can change the statute if they deem it necessary. Allowing The SCOTUS to overrule established law while dining on lobbyist dollars points to laziness and political cowardice.
Don McKellar says
“Perhaps in an ugly future, the US will be governed by a coalition of movie actors, liberal activists, MSM, and globalist corporations, as a global state ; leaving little necessity for voting or even a Constitution.”
That was the Obama regime setting things up from the Clinton regime, which would have gone even beyond Obama’s tin pot left-fascist proto-dictatorship. After Clinton it would have been exactly as you describe — she even handed over much of her campaigning to self-appointed celebrity surrogates. Luckily this run over the cliff has been averted for now.
Obama was an enemy of the Constitution, as are the judges he appointed. We can see this starkly proven with the evidence that 9 out of 9 Obama executive orders that went to the supreme court were all struck down as unconstitutional Unprecedented. There was never a president who was proven over and over again as an enemy to the Constitution and therefor the American people like him. Nobody even close.
Cynthia in California says
I cannot remember having posted in direct contravention to one of Mr. Spencer’s opinion pieces previously.
But I do it now.
Donald Trump’s highly selective EO omits every Muslim-majority country in which he or his family makes money. It omits Saudi Arabia, which gave us 15 of the 19 terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers, attacked the Pentagon, and never made it to their fourth target because of heroic Americans thwarting their desire. The other 4 were Mohammed Atta, their leader, from Egypt; one from Lebanon; and two from the United Arab Emirates. NONE of these countries is on the EO in either its first or second release.
if Trump wants to restrict Muslim entry into this country, adding Saudi, the UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, and other countries who’ve sent terrorists into the United States, would be a stronger statement. As it is, his EOs are both completely self-serving. Nowhere that there’s a Trump Hotel, golf course, office building, or other “Trump” entity is listed.
There are 57 countries in the OIC, and he selected 6 of them–ones where he makes no money.
This is not supportable; try again.
rubiconcrest says
The order clearly was not a Muslim ban and while a good case can be made for a temporary ban on more nations such a ban is not practical. I assume you read the order and the extreme vetting guidelines. Extreme vetting is for visas from all countries. Not just the 6 named in the temporary ban as I read it.
Don McKellar says
Several problems with your post and reasoning.
1) The EO is reflective of the current state of affairs and was taken directly from the Obama regime — who recognized that those countries were of direct risk, but did nothing about it. Except try and ramp up importation of moslems from them.
2) Certainly we can look to the major Islamic terror event of SIXTEEN YEARS AGO, but we must look at where things are now. See point 1. The world has changed since then, with the massive damage that Obama caused, throwing all those countries on the EO into complete chaos, and without functioning governments and without the ability to even correctly identify individuals.
3) You are using left-fascist talking points in your argument, not the facts in the actual document. There are several logical fallacies involved when you use politically motivated talking points to argue against a pragmatic, practical Executive Order. “Trump has business interests and didn’t put all moslem countries on the list, therefor it is not valid.” is not an argument to not put the countries on the EO that are there.
4) You are conflating campaign rhetoric with the actual content and Constitutional powers being legally and legitimately contained within the four corners of the document. Nowhere does it say moslems are banned, nor has now President Trump said ANYTHING about banning moslems or wanting to ban moslems. Zero. Zilch. Nothing. In fact he has acted in a way which moslems seeking to do business with the United States, and those who do not (directly) harm the United States, applaud and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in America. You need to think about this just for a second: Would Trump be welcomed to deliver that astounding, truthful speech in front of all those moslem leaders if he were trying to ban all moslems from the United States? Would he secure hundreds of billions from the Saudis? Not in a million years. Give your head a shake.
Your post is not supportable. It is not logical. Nor is it factual. You are merely spewing out left-fascist talking points without thinking it through or being intellectually honest with yourself.
Cynthia in California says
Interestingly enough, I came up with these points based on my own research into the OIC, Trump hotels, golf courses, and the rest of it. The countries from which the 9/11 terrorists came is a matter of public record.
I argue against the *inconsistency* of the EOs, not their imperfections. If you have a “left-fascist” site for me to see how I duplicated their list, I’d be interested in a link.
Otherwise, I am not “spewing” anything from anyone else. These are MY convictions, and several left-oriented acquaintances have bridled at them.
thx
gravenimage says
Cynthia, this list was first suggested by Obama, not Trump himself–so it was not developed with omissions of countries Donald Trump has had business dealings with.
One can argue that it does not cover all dangerous countries, and this is true.
But two things; firstly, it is a good start. If finally implemented, it can can be expanded to include other countries of origin.
But even as it stands now, it offers Americans protections from *some* Jihadists. A good thing, no?
Mark Swan says
Yes, a good thing gravenimage.
gravenimage says
🙂
vlparker says
The courts are supposed to determine whether or not new measures are in line with existing laws. That’s all. In light of that law, the courts should all have found Trump’s executive orders on immigration to be perfectly valid. Instead, none of the courts that blocked his executive orders even mentioned this law, not even long enough to explain why it didn’t apply in this case.
This is why I wish Trump would just ignore the court rulings and start firing the bureaucrats who won’t comply with his EO. By appealing to the Supreme Court, in a sense he is giving the Ninth and Fourth Circuits a legitimacy they don’t deserve. Their rulings were blatantly illegal and the Legislative and Executive branches of government have to stop letting the Judicial branch usurp their Constitutional powers.
EYESOPEN says
Agreed. But the vicious Left is – and has been – foaming at the mouth for President Trump’s impeachment before he was even inaugurated. With the RINOs currently sitting in Congress, who could tell what the outcome would be? That is probably the reason he decided to defer to the USSC for the decision.
If, even after Gorsuch is now on the USSC, they uphold the lower courts, this country is in a world of trouble. It would be interesting to see what President Trump will do if the USSC is also derelict in its duty.
Johan Elzinga says
Let us hope that the People of the United States rule the United States. They voted for Trump, and they want in majority what comes down to borders closed to unwanted immigrants. At least the US can then have what Europe completely lacks: sovereignty of their own territory. We in Europe are all still dependent of idiots such as Merkel and Macron.
EYESOPEN says
Thank you. I know that there are intelligent and informed people in the countries of Europe – BREXIT was an excellent example – but there are apparently too many indoctrinated fools who must think that civilizational suicide is just fine. I feel sorry for you.
yohanan says
The Supreme Court should hear this appeal carefully. Trump ran on a campaign promise of increased immigration restrictions and security vetting of potential Islamic terrorists. In the USA the people are the sovereign, including the 62,985,106 citizens (45.9% of total vote) who voted for Trump’s electoral victory,
yohanan says
The Supreme Court should hear this appeal carefully. Trump ran on a campaign promise of increased immigration restrictions and security vetting of potential Islamic terrorists. In the USA the people are the sovereign, including the 62,985,106 citizens (45.9% of total vote) who voted for Trump’s electoral victory,
gravenimage says
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to restore national security immigration ban
……………….
*Good*. I’m so glad the Trump administration hasn’t given up on this.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
Mr Spencer,even though you have little knowledge on American legal system ,but ,at least you ought to know that constitution is supreme and that all laws derive their validity from it.ie,it is the document that defines all powers,whether executive or legislative or judicial.As such the President cannot issue an executive order pursuant to an enabling law enacted by legislature ,which runs counter to clear provision of the constitution.In the instant case the plaintiffs have been able to prove that mad devil trump has,from his campaign utterances,shown animosities and discriminatory tendencies towards Muslims prohibited by the constitution.the crucial question raised at trial and appellate courts was that are all muslims from the countries affected by the ban necessarily terrorists threatening American security?By mentioning Muslims from those countries affected by the ban shows that the presidential order contains animosity towards particular religion,which is prohibited by the constitution. thus,the ban order has to be stricken down by the court pursuant to judicial power conferred on it by the constitution to do so.As such the supreme cannot reverse the decisions of the
courts bellow.if it does reverse them,its decisions will be considered as perverse( contrary to the proven facts placed before it).Note: courts,being custodian of law,will not succumb to the sentiment you are expressing now in defiance of clear position of the law,mr spencer.
m
EYESOPEN says
So what, idiot? The U.S. Constitution does not extend to foreign nationals who think that they can claim the right. What is more, is the U.S. Constitution was never designed to be a suicide pact.
gravenimage says
What a load of claptrap from the dishonest ibrahim itace muhammed. These are nations with large populations of terrorists–can muhammed deny this?
By the way, elsewhere muhammed has claimed that the American Constitution under religious freedom demands that Muslims be allowed to impose brutal Shari’ah law on us–including stoning rape victims in the streets.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
Eyeopen,you are the most stupid ignorant filthy christian bigot.Are saying the constitution does not protect foreigners coming into the united states against all forms of discriminatory treatment? it appears to me that you are just a vagabond and street thug without any understanding about the issues involved in this matter.you just say what comes out of your imagination as ignorant person.is it suicidal for the united states to allow muslims to into its territory?How can it determine who are threat to its national security?is that by face or the language they speak?Remember ,your devil trump targeted only Muslims from those countries affected by the ban,whether tIhey are threat to national security or not. the order does not affect non_ Muslims from these countries even if they may be threat to national security.the courts are saying you have to get record of involvement of an individual in any act capable of threatening national security,not mere assumption on the basis of his religion.if you base it on the mere fact that he is a muslim,you are discriminating against him on the basis of his religion,which the constitution prohibits.
Baucent says
“By mentioning Muslims from those countries affected by the ban shows that the presidential order contains animosity towards particular religion,which is prohibited by the constitution.”
You are wrong in fact and law. What part of the US Constitution are you referring? Freedom of religious practice for American citizens is guaranteed, but protections under US constitution do not extend to foreign nationals. The president in addition has sole prerogative to regulate immigration law and do it without explanation to anyone. I think this will become crystal clear once the Supreme court reviews the case. The lower courts were second guessing motives rather than addressing the wording of the “travel restrictions”
Any by the way, you are the rudest and most uncivil muslim I’ve yet to come across. How about dropping the “filthy Christian” insults, they do nothing for your argument, just show immaturity.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
Baucent,freedom of religion and right not be discriminated are universal declarations ratified by the united states and icnserted in the constitution as domestic basic law.consult a legal expert to educate you. You are complaining that i refer to Christians or Christianity as” filthy”,which you consider raining insults on Christians.indeed Christianity is filth because pagan doctrines were imported and mixed with what true Jesus taught that rendered it impure.let me give you an example someone prepared a delicious food for you .Before your arrival another person mixed it with human shit. Later the originator of this food sent another person to prepare another food for you using the same ingredients. But you rejected it and you insist on the that dirty food that will be dangerous to you health.christianity is that dirty food containing impurities.Islam is pure food frood good for your health.It was Satan who inspired the mixture of Christianity with pagan doctrines of mithraism in the year 325 Ad.
WPM says
Ibrahim itace muhammed the ban is on all people from those 6 countries named not just moslems,.If you believe Christians are fifth or they are devils that is not part of the question .President Trump according to the America law can put the ban in place. Moslems and other people(not in the ban countries) can still apply for work or immigration to the United States. Are you sure your not the author of the book “Making Friends Influencing Christians”?As far as universal declaration go any country can ban immigration or movement of people from foreign lands religion is not mention in the ban only the country the people are from . As far as food diet customs I think in your case your mistrust of nonmoslems if it is found in fact true or just fantasy it would be better for your mental heath to stay in a country that is 100 percent Islamic run by Islamics .Pure food for heart and mind in your eyes, if you stay away from Western ideas and ways maybe your heart will calm down, like how well the Sunni and Shite get along.
gravenimage says
More from ibrahim itace muhammed:
Eyeopen,you (sic) are the most stupid ignorant filthy christian (sic) bigot.
…………………………..
ibrahim itace muhammed believes that EYESOPEN is “bigoted” for not wanting to be raped or murdered by his pious coreligionists.
More:
Are saying the constitution does not protect foreigners coming into the united (sic) states (sic) against all forms of discriminatory treatment?
…………………………..
muhammed has claimed before that the Constitution allows Muslims to practice any Muslim savagery, including slaughtering us or keeping us as sex slaves. Dream on, Mohammedan.
More:
it (sic) appears to me that you are just a vagabond and street thug without any understanding about the issues involved in this matter.you (sic) just say what comes out of your imagination as ignorant person.is it suicidal for the united (sic) states (sic) to allow muslims (sic) to into its territory?
…………………………..
Pious Muslims–like muhammed himself–are quite open about wanting to destroy the civilized United States and replace her laws with Shari’ah savagery. So, yes–it *is* suicidal to let in hordes of Mohammdans.
More:
How can it determine who are threat to its national security?is (sic) that by face or the language they speak?
…………………………..
What clpatrap. This has nothing to do with anyone’s looks or even the language tha they speak–instead, it has to do with Muslims’ adherence to the vicious creed of Islam.
More:
Remember ,your (sic) devil trump (sic) targeted only Muslims from those countries affected by the ban,whether (sic) tIhey (sic) are threat to national security or not.
…………………………..
Any pious Muslim is a threat.
More:
the (sic) order does not affect non_ Muslims from these countries even if they may be threat to national security.
…………………………..
This is of course false–there is no specific exception from non-Muslims from these terrorist states. But it is also true that it is not non-Muslims who are waging violent Jihad against us.
More:
the (sic) courts are saying you have to get record of involvement of an individual in any act capable of threatening national security,not (sic) mere assumption on the basis of his religion.
…………………………..
The courts have not said that at all. muhammed is just pulling this out of his *ss and hoping we will not notice.
More:
if (sic) you base it on the mere fact that he is a muslim,you (sic) are discriminating against him on the basis of his religion,which (sic) the constitution prohibits.
…………………………..
Firstly, this partial and temporary ban does not mention Islam at all.
But the idea that we have to let in hordes of thugs who follow a creed enjoining them to oppress and murder us is grotesque. The free West did not roll out the welcome mat to Nazis during WWII.