Thursday, February 09, 2017
“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”
I increasingly like Trump. While he's often uncouth and bombastic, he's also no-nonsense and he's focused on the well-being of Americans. That's his job, and he's taking it very seriously. While I don't always agree with him -- we gain from free trade, most notably -- he appears to be intransigent in trying to protect Americans.
He is certainly right on his* temporary moratorium on immigration from seven states with strong anti-American Islamist forces. Mr. Trump's moratorium is to give the U.S. time to try to get an actual vetting process in place to stop Muslim terrorist groups from infiltrating their forces into the U.S, as "refugees," the way they've done in Europe. Those who oppose Trump in this fall into two categories (not mutually exclusive): enemies of the Unites States, and damned fools.
First, it is obvious that the President has the authority to block immigrants, by whatever categorization he thinks warranted:
8 U.S. Code § 1182(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."
Good grief, how could it be any more clear? This law was passed in 1952. (Thanks to Deroy Murdock and National Review Online for this.)
Second, it's obvious that screening verges on non-existent and that people who should not enter the country do so (San Bernardino, anyone?) Here's a link to a letter from a former State Department official in the Chicago Tribune who argues Trump isn't going far enough.
There's no sense at all in the Ninth Circuit decision. It is neither in keeping with law nor basic common sense. It doesn't even reference the applicable law. So now the federal government will appeal the case to SCOTUS. I can only hope that among the justices of SCOTUS there are at least five who will rule guided by law, and not ideology (contrary to what WaPo appears to think they should and will do).
Take them to court, Mr. Trump!
______________________________________________________________________________
*"Trump's" moratorium is actually what Senator Rand Paul proposed last year as an alternative to candidate Donald Trump's proposal to block Muslim immigration. Trump has adopted Paul's proposal. No one but the staff at Unforeseen Contingencies seems to have been sufficiently insightful to have noticed this.
He is certainly right on his* temporary moratorium on immigration from seven states with strong anti-American Islamist forces. Mr. Trump's moratorium is to give the U.S. time to try to get an actual vetting process in place to stop Muslim terrorist groups from infiltrating their forces into the U.S, as "refugees," the way they've done in Europe. Those who oppose Trump in this fall into two categories (not mutually exclusive): enemies of the Unites States, and damned fools.
First, it is obvious that the President has the authority to block immigrants, by whatever categorization he thinks warranted:
8 U.S. Code § 1182(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."
Good grief, how could it be any more clear? This law was passed in 1952. (Thanks to Deroy Murdock and National Review Online for this.)
Second, it's obvious that screening verges on non-existent and that people who should not enter the country do so (San Bernardino, anyone?) Here's a link to a letter from a former State Department official in the Chicago Tribune who argues Trump isn't going far enough.
There's no sense at all in the Ninth Circuit decision. It is neither in keeping with law nor basic common sense. It doesn't even reference the applicable law. So now the federal government will appeal the case to SCOTUS. I can only hope that among the justices of SCOTUS there are at least five who will rule guided by law, and not ideology (contrary to what WaPo appears to think they should and will do).
Take them to court, Mr. Trump!
______________________________________________________________________________
*"Trump's" moratorium is actually what Senator Rand Paul proposed last year as an alternative to candidate Donald Trump's proposal to block Muslim immigration. Trump has adopted Paul's proposal. No one but the staff at Unforeseen Contingencies seems to have been sufficiently insightful to have noticed this.
Comments:
<< Home
I disagree. I think Trump's policy is amateurish. He issued his order in such a way that the first court instance would overturn it, and for good reason. The scenes with permanent residents and even airline crew stranded were, to my opinion, disgraceful. If anything, they reminded me of Egyptian flights held because flight attendants had forgotten the required written permission of their husbands to travel abroad.
Moreover, while Iranian regime is odious, Iran is full of pro-democracy citizens. You must remember their protests in 2009. Now, a freedom-loving Iranian who risks imprisonment, or has already served a term, has no chance to seek refuge in the USA.
Also, do you think Iranians are a security threat to the USA? It is the Iranian regime that is a threat, and the Hezbollah terrorists supported by it, who are mostly non-Iranians. Our government is still searching two suspects for a 2012 Hezbollah-organized bus bombing; both are of Arab origin, with Canadian and Australian citizenship respectively.
The San Bernandino shooters were of Pakistani origin. The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two countries that combine ultra-militant Islam with high birth rates. Neither is on Trump's list. (Not that I'd like Trump to impose a ban on Saudis in his blunderbuss manner that would prevent Raif Badawi's family from coming to the USA.)
I am also angry that Trump, who initially sounded almost pro-choice, now makes anti-abortion remarks to appease his women-hating supporters.
Moreover, while Iranian regime is odious, Iran is full of pro-democracy citizens. You must remember their protests in 2009. Now, a freedom-loving Iranian who risks imprisonment, or has already served a term, has no chance to seek refuge in the USA.
Also, do you think Iranians are a security threat to the USA? It is the Iranian regime that is a threat, and the Hezbollah terrorists supported by it, who are mostly non-Iranians. Our government is still searching two suspects for a 2012 Hezbollah-organized bus bombing; both are of Arab origin, with Canadian and Australian citizenship respectively.
The San Bernandino shooters were of Pakistani origin. The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two countries that combine ultra-militant Islam with high birth rates. Neither is on Trump's list. (Not that I'd like Trump to impose a ban on Saudis in his blunderbuss manner that would prevent Raif Badawi's family from coming to the USA.)
I am also angry that Trump, who initially sounded almost pro-choice, now makes anti-abortion remarks to appease his women-hating supporters.
OK, you don't like Trump. But your criticism makes no sense. This is not a ban on immigration. The Obama administration has been admitting immigrants from these places without checking them. A temporary moratorium on immigration while system for checking is sensible.
I don't give a damn about non-citizens who have been inconvenienced, and I don't understand why I should. It is not America's role to be a dumping ground for "Syrian" refugees. (Isn't that what Germany is for?)
Post a Comment
I don't give a damn about non-citizens who have been inconvenienced, and I don't understand why I should. It is not America's role to be a dumping ground for "Syrian" refugees. (Isn't that what Germany is for?)
<< Home
