The President always had the authority to restrict immigration for national security reasons. The blocks on his bans always ignored that fact and played politics. The Supreme Court has made the right decision. Either you let some harmful people in or you keep some harmless people out. It’s that simple. It’s a hard choice. The former choice has been forced on us for years. Now we have a President who is interested in national security. The anti-America Left will howl and is howling, which shows how much they care about national security, i.e., not at all.
“Supreme Court lets full Trump travel ban take effect,” by Ariane de Vogue, CNN, December 4, 2017:
Washington (CNN)The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the newest version President Donald Trump’s travel ban to take effect pending appeal.
This is the first time justices have allowed any edition of the ban to go forward in its entirety. It signals that some of the justices might be distinguishing the latest version from previous iterations and could be more likely, in the future, to rule in favor of the ban.Issued in September, the third edition of the travel ban placed varying levels of restrictions on foreign nationals from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.
Lower courts in two separate challenges had partially blocked the ban.
The order is a significant temporary win for the Trump administration, which has fought all year to impose a travel ban against citizens of several Muslim-majority countries. Monday’s order means it can be enforced while challenges to the policy make their way through the legal system.
The Trump administration has maintained that the President has the authority to install travel bans in order to protect national security.
“The Constitution and acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prevent aliens abroad from entering this country when he deems it in the nation’s interest,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court papers. Francisco argued that the ban was necessary “in order to protect national security.”
In his arguments, Francisco pushed back on allegations from critics that the travel ban amounted to a “Muslim Ban” in part by noting that the latest iteration covers some countries that are not majority Muslim. “These differences confirm that the Proclamation is based on national-security and foreign-affairs objectives, not religious animus,” he wrote.
But after Francisco made those arguments, the President caused controversy by retweeting three inflammatory videos from a British far-right account rife with anti-Muslim content.
The videos, posted by Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, a far-right and ultra-nationalist political group, depict purported Muslims assaulting people and, in one video, smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary.Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the administration’s request.
Cases continue
Challenges against the travel ban will continue this week on both coasts.
In the Hawaii case, a district court judge blocked the ban from going into effect except as it pertains to Venezuela and North Korea. But a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals partially lifted that order. The appeals court allowed the ban to go into effect except for foreign nationals who have “bona fide” relationships with people or entities in the United States. The language of the order was adopted from a Supreme Court order pertaining to an earlier version of the ban….
mike9a says
a small dose of sanity in the sea of insanity and relativism
p bay says
scumbag liberal judges like the sanctuary state lunatics want rapes, and destruction. They cannot accept the truth. The latest death albeit preventable, Never even got an apology from these democrats with their bizarre views.
100% of the Democrats voted against me getting a tax break. Well, next election I hope 100% of these America haters are out! Except California, where its OK to let rapists-murders out against federal laws. We need to start charging Gov Brown on down . They are culpable for these murders, and letting them win the murder case, is so sick I can’t grasp it!
David Pimentel says
Here’s something else to baffle a rational mind.
Illegal Alien From Mexico Convicted of Sexual Assault Deported 20 Times …
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/illegal-alien-mexico-convicted-sexual-assault-deported-20-times-u-s/
Apparently, 6 deportations is insufficient, but 20 times is the sweet spot for these delusional lunatics. Before anyone states the obvious fact that this was not California, remember that Oregon is just a suburb of that insanity.
Naildriver says
Okay then, Trump should immediately expand the ban to include all Muslims, as he teased the voters.
It’d be better to see a country with tens of millions of freaked out, hopping mad leftists and Muslims than to see another devotee of this vile religion enter the country.
Let this become the point where the USA’s enemies show themselves for what they are. At some point the practical claims to the USA’s interests and security needs be divided from those who would destroy the Constitution — from those who would forever cripple the republic’s meaning, history, integrity and humanity, to sanction this evil.
And, what is this ‘evil’ of Islam? It is literally to subject and condemn the population that is not Muslim to perpetual threat, intimidation, stupidity, greed, lies, loss of freedoms, and subjection to violence to accommodate and coerce to lend false respect to this absurd system that plays blacks against whites; and is now in danger of making it a conflict of white supremacists against the liberal population.
To allow Islam a protected status is to enable and insist upon the worst character in humanity: hatred and bigotry; violence and warmongering; lies and delusions; sexual predation, obsession, and sexism; murder, and of course those downsides Churchill so aptly enumerated; such as a smug attitude abetted with a fanaticism that ruin all economic and moral interests; as he said, like a dog infected with rabies.
Islam is very far from being OK.
Terry Gain says
No non-citizen has a right to enter the United States. Not even a Muslim supremacist deterrmined to impose Islam upon a nation developed mainly by Christians.
Linde Barrera says
To Terry- I agree, they should not have “the right”. However, there are many law-abiding people who come here from other nations (not Muslim-majority nations) and never buy a return ticket back to their homeland. They live for several months or longer with an established relative who is a US citizen (and this alien works for that relative in some capacity) and then after a certain time has passed, applies for some kind of identity (Green Card? Visa? I really do not know) and gets it. I truly see nothing wrong with that process. Obviously, this alien is looking to become American and wants to obey the laws, learn the English language and work a job or attend school to qualify for a job. I really see nothing bad about any of those things either. The problem is when an alien actively breaks the law such as carrying an unlicensed weapon, attacking an innocent person, leaving the scene of a vehicular accident, etc. and gets in trouble. Then I have a problem with that alien. And I know several Christians from Nigeria, Pakistan and Algeria (Christians from the last 2 countries who have to keep their religion a secret because they live in Muslim-majority countries) who would give their right arm to come to the US to live here forever. So we freedom-loving Americans can thank Pres. Trump for pushing this travel ban.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“I really do not know) and gets it. I truly see nothing wrong with that process.”
It’s called queue jumping. It cheats those who follow the rules.
le mouron rouge says
Linde Barrera,
Situational ethics? Either there “is” a rule of law or there isn’t. Can’t have it both ways.
Please explain how a “law abiding” person justifies breaking the law? The end justifies the means?
I’m guessing your intentions are honorable, however, it appears that the logic is faulty.
b.a. freeman says
Linde, republics work in large part because of respect for and obedience of the law – *all* law, whether or not we agree with it. sometimes, i must admit, a law can be so unjust that one must deliberately break it, but in that case, one also has an obligation to draw the attention of law enforcement to one’s law-breaking, and peacefully await arrest. upon arrival of the authorities, one should cooperate fully with them and submit to arrest peacefully. the object is to protest the injustice of a law in *court*, not to maximize damage to the State. most States throughout history have been dictatorships of one flavor or another; these States typically have laws, but these are interpreted to favor those in power, not to ensure justice. furthermore, such “laws” are very elastic, and are often not even formal, because the law is what the people with all the weapons say it is. such States are evil, and almost without exception (in spite of the occasional “benevolent” tyrant) inimical to their citizens/victims.
it is when *every* citizen must obey *every* law, and *every* citizen is treated *equally* by the law, that a republic is possible. the law must be interpreted very carefully, and a very close watch must be kept on the courts to ensure that they do not favor either those in power in the State, or those with power external to it. this is why we have jury trials; the jury consists of those who are the peers of the person being tried, to ensure that he receives treatment as fair as possible, and the *same* treatment that any other citizen would receive.
this is why it *imperative* that the law be obeyed. i love the idea of immigration. my people came from europe and north america (before the colonies), and i have met many new immigrants, both legal and illegal. all were hard-working, and in general, obeyed the law as much as any native-born american. unfortunately, the illegal aliens broke the law. i sympathize with them, but the law must be enforced. justice can be served while still being tempered, but there must be a penalty paid for the lawbreaking. furthermore, the illegal aliens are earning money, which mean that there are employers paying them illegally. if there were no jobs for people here illegally, there would be far fewer illegals. if there were a fine of $10 000.00 per day per illegal employee, such jobs would soon dry up. and if an employer were to repeat the offense, he should spend time in prison, perhaps 10 or 15 years minimum. such laws would be simple and easy to enforce, and better yet, the problem would end.
at *that* point, illegal aliens should be considered for amnesty. a “guest worker” program could be considered as well. the most important point is that the law *must* be enforced; otherwise, we make a mockery of what holds the republic together. if we don’t like the law, we must *change* it, and we *never* break laws lightly.
N Dixon says
Here’s the problem. If someone decides to arrive illegally there’s a good chance the same illegal mentality will find its way into other illegal pastimes once they’ve arrived – because that’s how an illegal already thinks. Why would you think illegal behavior is a once-off thing? Also, many immigrants choose the legal (and visa paying) route, they should not be tarnished by illegals.
le mouron rouge says
b.a. freeman,
Interesting comments, thank you.
It seems that the time has come to clarify the “original intent” of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It appears that the main purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, was to address the slaves that had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.
The current interpretation, which I think is in error, allows illegal immigrants to give birth on American soil and automatically permits their child to become an American citizen.
There are approximately 35 countries that share in this practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
dumbledoresarmy says
Exactly.
p bay says
You better tell Jerry Brown, who needs illegal votes to get elected.
JawsV says
I’m amazed. Bravo!
Wellington says
A victory to be sure for Trump, freedom, and (at least implicitly) honesty about Islam, but two Supreme Court Justices (Ginsburg and Sotomayor) didn’t agree with what Trump clearly had the right to do per the 1952 law which allows a President to ban anyone from the country whom he deems a threat.
So, even at the highest levels of justice in America, we find stupidity and something worse than fake news. Yes, we find fake law, courtesy of Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
Freedom is so fragile and the Islamic world is a mortal enemy of freedom. But so are two Supreme Court Justices. Ominous. And only three more such ignoramuses on the Supreme Court would have dealt freedom a mortal blow today. Yeah, just three more people. See how fragile freedom is? You betcha’.
le mouron rouge says
Wellington,
Well said.
Sotomayor is another bit of damage that Obama has inflicted on the American people.
JawsV says
You mean the “wise Latina?” Heh
Julius O'Malley says
Sotomayor and Ginsburg are representative of the destruction of the judiciary in Western countries that began in the 1970’s. Once gender, race or sexuality begin to become criteria in judicial appointments havoc ensues, bringing the judiciary into low public regard and jeopardizing the rule of law. Ultimately the social order and fabric.
N Dixon says
Remove all the Muslim hysteria from this debate and you’re still left with 7 countries intent on destroying America. Let’s just focus on that for the benefit of our friends who are a little slow at catching on.
p bay says
why does Trump need to listen to these moonbats?
Jack Holan says
I believe the Judges modifying or agreeing to Temporary Injunctions should have their name prominently mentioned often. Therefore if their decision causes death on a mass scale we will know who let the terrorist in.
p bay says
Its OK to kill to further liberalism, and the antifa army enforcing it.
Suicide is acceptable in the lib belief system. Muslims kill for hate, and these people seem to be in the democrat party now
gravenimage says
Supreme Court lets full Trump travel ban take effect
……………………
*Finally*. A bit of very good news. This is only partial, but even if it goes no further, will no doubt make Americans safer.
I also hope this serves as a model for other Western nations, but given the current climate fear it will not.
p bay says
BBC will no longer be hiring whites..
Guest says
A victory is a victory
LeftisruiningCanada says
“the travel ban placed varying levels of restrictions on foreign nationals from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.”
It won’t do much to upset the well funded jihadi, but its a sure step in a direction that will cause a general increase in border security.
Good for everyone in N America (who doesn’t want to destroy it)
p bay says
the saudis have already found new passport blanks for these terrorists.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
And now Trump should officially move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Related stories:
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/12/04/arab-league-chief-warns-trump-recognizing-jerusalem-israeli-capital-will-lead-violence/
https://www.rt.com/news/411908-us-jerusalem-catastrophe-turkey/
NATO should toss out Turkey!
dumbledoresarmy says
Yes.
Move the embassy.
And ditch Turkey from NATO (and, btw, it would be a damn good idea also to root up Fethullah Gulen, that sly and sinister creature, from his ‘compound’ in the USA – he is just as dangerous as the Ayatollah Khomeini, or perhaps even *more* dangerous because less open about his longterm intentions – and *all* identifiable operatives and agents… the entire Gulen organisation needs to be uprooted out of the western world and given the boot, right back to Turkey where they can slug it out with equally-sinister Erdogan. Get rid.
And the *next* step is to find some way of, slowly ,carefully, but inexorably, and permanently, disentangling the USA from its current lot of dead-end and deadly dhimmi-like ‘relationships’ with *other * Islamic entities, such as .. the Abominable House of Saud. Stopping the jizya to the ‘pooooor “palestinians”” is probably the first and easiest start to make on this, because they are so obviously and blatantly corrupt and also so obviously engaged in rabid Jihad against the Jews (as well as against Christians, such as those that remain in Gaza and in Muslim dominated portions of Judea and Samaria). Stopping ALL ‘aid’ ( jizya/ tribute) to *any* mohammedan entity would be one simple way to *save* a whole hell of a lot of money… I wonder whether Trump or one of his team has done a bit of number-crunching, just quietly?
Disengage from the Ummah altogether, over time. Realign toward India. Remain a friend to Israel; indeed, be a *better* friend, by stopping with the ‘peace processing’ that is nothing but a snare and delusion.
dumbledoresarmy says
PS On the subject of the saving of money: having Muslims within the gate is *very* very very EXPENSIVE, because of the *enormous* cost of the homeland-security measures required by their presence. Thus: the exclusion of OIC-passport-holding persons from the USA, should be pitched as an *economic* gain.. because it IS.
Stopping the entry of Muslims into the USA (by preventing entry of anybody from an OIC entity, other than persons – e.g. Egyptian Coptic Christians, or Syrian or iraqi Christians – who have been firmly identified as members of the persecuted *non-Muslim* indigenous minorities within said OIC entities) would mean, in the long run much less trouble and expense.
Identifying and deporting all non-citizen Muslims already within the USA would also reduce the security headache… .and *expense*.
And I suspect that interning all *citizen* Muslims who are on jihad ‘watch’ lists, putting them in one place where they *can’t* get up to much, would also be less expensive than leaving them ‘on the loose’ and spending huge amounts of time and money trying to keep tabs on them, with the prospect, all the time, of one of them ‘slipping the net’ long enough to kill tens, hundreds or even thousands of hapless US non-Muslims.
p bay says
pick them up for spitting on the sidewalk on up as Giuliani did.
Then start mass deportation, and citizenship revokes. We need 10,000 per day to go.
Canada is a good alternative. The white obama wants ISIS fighters, which will be talked to as they are let in
LeftisruiningCanada says
Don’t point them in our direction!
Once this creep trudeau and his D team party are voted down, we’ll be on the same page as you guys. I hope.
Cheryl says
Fethullah Gulan controls taxpayer funding of Charter schools in the US and funnels quite a bit of the money to support ISIS and jihadists. Google it – it’s shocking!!! And our government allows it!!!!
Champ says
“The Supreme Court has made the right decision.” — Robert Spencer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed!
Troybeam says
“Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the administration’s request.”
What’s wrong here? Do these two women have one iota on the sovereignty of our nation? The national defense of our nation to keep people out who have declared war and make no bones about destruction of our nation.
These women are whats wrong within the Supreme court justices along with Keagan. Each and everyone of these persons on the Supreme court have one job: to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution. I don’t remember the Constitution stating that all foreign nationals that have threatened our nation be allowed a free ride to live within our nation, receive welfare, housing and Constitutional rights when they are not citizens.
p bay says
anything against Trump. Their brain has hardened too much except for hate
Cheryl says
They are libtards!
Matthieu Baudin says
“… Now we have a President who is interested in national security…”
And for all his shortcomings we should be grateful that at last we have a man of action who has his eye on the ball.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
p bay says
shortcomings? The mkt is high jobs are coming back, and we are getting a tax break..
Carolyne says
I find it somewhat unfair that more often than not praise for the President is qualified with a phrase such as “Despite his shortcomings…..” Or “While I don’t agree with everything he does…..” I think the left has shamed Mr. Trump’s supporters to the point that they cannot give him their support without some kind of denial. I wholeheartedly and with pride support Donald Trump. No reservations.
Linda says
I am happy for America.
StacyGirl says
The ruling should be retroactive. This should have never gone to the Supreme Court but with leftists they must always try to subvert as they typically prevail. Justice!
Sarah says
All this does is remind me of just how much time and how much money and how many resources were used, wasted and tied up in this whole sorry saga?
As POTUS he had the legal right and authority to bring in this ban – and its a ban that is almost identical to similar bans made from people like Obama and Bill Clinton.
I guess it OK only when the Democrats propose the ban?
How many policy changes were ignored by Politicians in Congress, while this idiocy took up valuable airspace? How many life changing decisions via the Judiciary were delayed thanks to this idiocy wending its way through to the very upper echelon of the US Justice system?
God the waste. So much waste. And for what? It went through in the bitter end. All it did was potentially allow a few extra thousand Muslims race through the gates before they were locked shut.
I didn’t realize prioritizing the self-entitled wishes of a couple of thousand Immigrants was by far a more pressing priority than the safety and the lives of 323 million Americans. Apparently America, this is how important the Democrats think you are.
mortimer says
Any argument should stand or fall on its own merits, rather than on the basis of who presented it or the party the presented. it.
Infidel says
Without the inclusion of the ISLAMIC ROGUE states of Pak and Saudi.. the ban is INCOMPLETE.. Regardless, it is a WELCOME STEP.. Hats off to DT..
dumbledoresarmy says
“Without the inclusion of the ISLAMIC ROGUE states of Pak and Saudi.. the ban is INCOMPLETE.”
Yes.
All those – American and non-American but allied – jihadwatchers who think Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – and the rest of the OIC entities!!! – should be on the BAN list, should write to the POTUS and tell him exactly that. And if American, write to your congressman/ woman and Senator. And to the persons in charge of homeland security, Defence, and foreign affairs.
Re the House of Saud: state loud and clear that if persons holding KSA passports had been on a BAN list for the 20 years prior to 9/11 and at that time (2000/ 2001), the attack of September 11 2001 could not have been carried out. If the Muslim operatives hadn’t been able to get *into* the USA they couldn’t have got onto those domestic flights.
N Dixon says
Liberal squealing about Trump’s “anti-Muslim” video retweets: would this make videos of Nazis shooting Jews “anti-Nazi”? How about addressing the horrors shown in the videos? The dumbed down rhetoric of those trying to shoot the messenger beggars belief.
Lorensacho says
The decision to ban people from these Muslim countries is political. The 9/11 attackers mostly came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Pakistan has sent more than one terrorist. These countries are not on the list so it can be said that the problem of our security is being handled very incompetently. The Supreme Court is not the venue to examine whether our security would be enhanced if people from Islamic countries are barred from coming here. All the Supreme Court has done is to rule that the President has the power to bar anyone from entering the U.S.A.
cezanne says
I have been grateful to American voters for our President from the first moment I heard of his victory! “Hooray for me and the mice, the oats are all right”. We have been under siege for decades now, thankfully President Trump is slowing and turning about the inroads. This policy absolutely needed to be innacted and should also be retroactively enforced.
However, I got more that this sight ain’t gonna like. There are many Zionists which we have documented proof of, are leftist Globalists who are determined to re-shape the fabric of this and all other nations. I suggest we have extra extreme vetting for these race traitors who are trying to subvert our culture through their money and connections! Please Mr. President send ICE and Homeland Security to investigate Walt Disney and Hollywood, and don’t forget the Brookings institution the council on Foreign Relations and the Trillatteral Commission.
Carolyne says
You want Mickey Mouse investigated?
Just kidding.
cezanne says
yea whomever is personifation of mickey mouse in the wards of pedophilia yea!!!
Brian Hoff says
The hight court didnot rule on the muslim ban being constitution as the 2 appeals court didnot finish they legal progress on the matter yet. It right than lawyer in a criminal trail appealing than ruleing by the trail judge on than matter which they disagree with. The appeal court isnot ruleing on the whole criminal trail only on than point of law or on ruleing by the trail judge handleing the trail.