Matt Walsh:
I’m not going to bother with an in depth breakdown of Trump’s Executive Order on immigration. Plenty of those have already been written, and a few of them are even accurate (examples: here and here). I have only a few random points that need to be emphasized:
1. EVERYONE CALM DOWN.
I wasn’t able to pay very close attention to the news this weekend, so I witnessed the hysterical meltdown over the Executive Order before I’d had a chance to read the actual text (a step that 98 percent of the protesters have clearly not taken). From the way the Left went into full meltdown mode, you’d think that Trump took some kind of extreme, incredible, unthinkable step. That is, you might come to that conclusion if you hadn’t noticed that the Left is now in a state of perpetual nuclear meltdown. The Fukushima meltdown went on for three days; the Left’s own nuclear meltdown is sure to outlast that by a factor of a thousand.
Trump’s action here is certainly more than Obama ever did or ever would do, but it’s not entirely unprecedented even by Obama’s standards. As has been pointed out many times since Friday, Obama put a temporary hold on the Iraqi refugee program for 6 months back in 2011. If you happened to be in an airport after Obama signed that order, you may have noticed the complete lack of protesting going on. On second thought, you probably would not have noticed because, back in those ancient times, you never would have expected to see a national panic over a reasonable measure meant to ensure that terrorists aren’t entering the country. But those were also the days when Obama could assassinate US citizens without the Left uttering a word or protest. They were more easy going back then, it seems. I wonder why?
Anyway, yes, Trump’s order goes beyond Obama’s. Trump is putting a hold on the Syrian refugee program until the process can be revamped and security measures are put in place. He’s also suspending all refugee admissions for just 4 months. And he is temporarily preventing the citizens of 7 terrorists hot spots from entering the United States. Those hot spots are: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It should be noted that Trump did not single out those countries by name in his Executive Order. He simply adopted the Obama Administration’s list of “countries of concern.” It was Obama who highlighted them initially. Trump just took the next logical step.
If these measures seem radical, they only seem radical to us because we’d grown accustomed to a president who did very little to protect national security and sovereignty. Indeed, we’d grown accustomed to a president who, infamously, couldn’t even bring himself to verbally acknowledge Islamic terrorism. Compared to that, yes, what Trump has done here is absolutely shocking. Looked at objectively, however, it’s honestly not that radical. It’s not a big deal at all, really. It’s a sensible first step towards ensuring that American citizens are better protected from the violence and chaos overseas.
What would these protesters have us do, anyway? Somalia, Syria, Libya — these are failed states. They’re literal breeding grounds for terrorism. They’re like an assembly line for mass murdering zealots. These are some of the most dangerous places on Earth. Nobody is saying that we should never again admit anyone from this region of the world, but it seems enormously sensible to take a brief and temporary pause to assess how we admit them.
Should we not even do that much? Really?
You have to be suicidal, an idiot, or a liar to act like Trump has committed some kind of atrocity simply because he wants to ensure that we’re being extremely careful when we open our doors to people from nests of global jihadism. Speaking of which:
2. If you call this a “Muslim ban”, you are a godforsaken liar.
Let’s cut to the chase. There’s no other way of putting it. When you refer to Trump’s “Muslim ban,” you’re lying. If you aren’t directly lying, then you’re blindly lobbing accusations without stopping to confirm whether the accusations are true. And that’s the same thing as lying. So, you’re a liar. Stop it. Stop lying so much.
A “Muslim ban” would be a ban on Muslims. A ban on Muslims would be a law that prevents Muslims from entering the United States based solely on the fact that they are Muslim. No such law exists. No such Executive Order was issued. Trump’s policy temporarily prevents citizens from only 7 Muslims majority countries from coming to the country, which leaves about 43 Muslim majority countries unaffected. The only problem a rational person could have with this decision is that more Muslim nations — Saudi Arabia, especially — should have been included. Perhaps they will be in the future. But you’re a fool if you argue that fewer countries should have been targeted. And you’re a liar if you claim that the targeting of these terrorism factories is tantamount to a “Muslim ban.”
It’s not Donald Trump’s fault that all of the countries that churn out terrorists also happen to be Muslim. The reason that Christian majority countries aren’t being subjected to a ban is that Christian majority countries aren’t exporting jihadists left and right. Now, it goes without saying that if Christian terrorism was even a thing, and if there were Christian nations that had collapsed into anarchy and were now producing scores of Christian militants bent on violently enslaving the planet in the name of Christ, then these very same Leftists would be the first to shout for a ban, at a minimum. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear them clamoring for a series of nuclear strikes to finally eradicate the Christian scourge once and for all.
If your a liberal journalists or politician lying just becomes the everyday thing to do just listen to the news everyday or hear some campaign speech by a liberal demacrats and youll know what im squawking about
I only read the headline but to be clear, this is indeed a Muslim ban implemented by a Muslim hating president who skirted around the Constitution and the Legislative Branch.
It’s a Muslim ban from a con man who ran a campaign on banning Muslims.
@Ajay42302:
What is unconstitutional about the EO?
@Ajay42302: Thanks for proving, without debate, the point. Who knew a proven liberal liar would appear and say, “Yep, we liberals lie. It’s our thing!”
@Bill:
Ajay is unable to explain why he believes what he has been told, that the EO is unconstitutional.
We need to ignore the troll he is just the Eddie Haskle type a slacker, ignorant. Or you can all stomp the bag of flaming dogpoo he leaves on the porch.
@July 4th American:
Per the Boston University Law Review (which I think holds more credibility than, say, moonbattery.com):
1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.
2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.
3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.
4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Less known were earlier rulings strengthening protections for noncitizens in detention facing removal, such as Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.
5. Family Reunification Rights. The tragic stories of separated families bring out yet another constitutional right at stake that few have commented on: The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the importance of the fundamental right to family relationships. Family reunification is also of primary importance in immigration law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges emphasized how multiple constitutional rights magnified the harm of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. “The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. The constitutional violations in that case were made worse because there was discrimination—over something as important as the fundamental right to marry. Today, these constitutional violations are worse because the order discriminates on the basis of religion, nationality, and ethnicity, over rights as important as due process, the right to family relationships, and the right not to be excluded unlawfully. The equal protection, due process, First Amendment, habeas, and fundamental rights violations that we describe are important standing along but even more devastating to the legality of the order when seen in tandem. As we have written in a 2015 article, constitutional rights magnify their power when they share reinforcing interests.*
There will always be cases where national security interests outweigh constitutional rights. But those should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not as a ban that stereotypes and discriminates against an entire group of people. Lawmakers should step in to reaffirm through legislation that national security regulation can be done right, and constitutionally. In the meantime, the courts should strike down this order as unconstitutional in its entirety.
@Ajay42302:
Non citizens of the United States do not have Constitutional rights.
@July 4th American:
That simply isn’t true.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that “due process” of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is “unlawful, involuntary or transitory.”
Getting back to the 14th Admendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But this was settled years ago by the SCOTUS and even before that ruling, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote: “that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage.”
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The following words do not rank well in American history, jurisprudence or in truth: “(Illegal aliens) do not have legal rights.” Glenn Beck declared this on CNN in February 2007.
He is not alone; popular radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity agree with Beck to one degree or another. For example, Ingraham — a lawyer — says that Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in Plyler v. Doe (1982) offhandedly commented that illegals had rights because they were “persons,” so no one should take Brennan seriously or his official declaration of legal rights of illegal aliens.
The critics all claim that undocumented workers or immigrants or migrants — whichever label is the flavor of the day — don’t have legal rights because they are lawbreakers by entering the country illegally and owe no loyalty to the United States. They claim that only U.S. citizens (natural born or naturalized) are protected by the Constitution. The critics are not only wrong — they are really, truly and sincerely wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote: “that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage.”
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that “due process” of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is “unlawful, involuntary or transitory.”
20 years prior to Zadvydas, the Court ruled that Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools.
The court ruled in Plyler that:
The illegal aliens who are … challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of the term … the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents.
Prior to Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution’s amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.
Is it just a common practice here for the regulars to just shoot from the hip with whatever alternative facts that suits their agenda? Does anyone here actually expand their knowledge beyond the parameters of FA or Hannity or moonbattery.com? Does reality make any difference at all?
Only citizens of the United States have rights under the Constitution of the United States. No one else can claim Constitutional rights if they are not a citizen. Try civics 101 if that is still confusing to you. Individuals in a foreign country who may be on the EO list or others of another country who are not US citizens are not entitled to Constitutional rights, period.
@July 4th American:
If you refuse to acknoledge actual SCOTUS rulings, refuse to accept actual wording and legal interpretaions of Admendments, and upon hearing actual fact you elect to hear, well, perhaps dolphin squeak, I really don’t know what to tell you.
Your denial of reality is at least consistent with your fellow clones.
@Ajay42302:
Your argument lacks Constitutional understanding. Non citizens in countries effected by the EO list do not have Constitutional rights ergo the EO is not unconstitutional. One follows the other. Your effort to portray my understanding is specious at best.
@July 4th American:
There are a great deal of lawsuits, legal scholars, judges, and pundits on both sides of the aisle that disagrees with you. There’s even an AG fired over beliving so.
You really haven’t provided a credible argument as to why this religious ban (something that even Mike Pence said would be unconstitutional) is legal, only that it has to be because you (a no-name bigoted hack on a low end bigoted hack site) say so. And in your denial, like a spoiled child covering his ears and stomping his feet, you completely ignore the multiple rulings I presented as well as the overwhelming arguments from most of the world.
President Trump Reportedly Toying With Deporting Immigrants On Public Assistance
While leftists struggle to come to terms with President Donald Trump’s temporary moratorium on refugees and decry his coming crackdown on illegal immigrants, you won’t hear a peep from those same people regarding Barack Obama’s little-discussed deportation order that he enacted on his way out the door.
Thousands of oppressed Cubans continue to seek refuge elsewhere to escape the Castro regime’s iron fist. Nevertheless, Obama, who extended unbefitting olive branches to the Cuban government, broke longstanding protocol by making a sly, last-minute decision to ban and ultimately deport defectors who land on American soil. Those who were hoping to be protected under the U.S. “wet foot-dry foot” policy suddenly aren’t.
As Obama explained it, “Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal. By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries.” Chances are, most leftists who see that quote without any attribution could mistake it for a Trump directive. The Left has a serious problem with selective outcry, which depends entirely on who is in office and the political circumstances.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/02/01/president-trump-makes-unannounced-visit-to-honor-slain-navy-seal-acosta-nr.cnn
Gosh, he didn’t even have to try and kill a cop to get a Presidential visit.
Take notice, liberals… this is how a President acts. For 8 years we never saw such leadership. It’s back.
@Ajay42302: What language do you read
14th ammendment
No STATE ( not federal) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person WITHIN its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Those in a foreign country are not within our jurisdiction. They are not US citizens!
James Madison, the SECOND president of the United States, wrote: “that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage.”
At that time it was the states that chose who could be admitted into their borders to gain citizenship, it seems to be a federal thing now, as The SCOTUS ruled against Arizona in favor of Obama when they wanted to enforce immigration laws within their own state borders.
You libs cannot have it both ways, its ok when in you do it, and when it isn’t you suddenly now is unconstitutional.
Seems only the SCOTUS can change the language of a law (obamacareless) where STATE means FEDS and tax me for not purchasing a product that SUCKS.
They should do that with guns, You will pay a huge tax penalty if you dont buy a government designed gun that blows up in your face.
While leftists struggle to come to terms with President Donald Trump’s temporary moratorium on refugees and decry his coming crackdown on illegal immigrants, you won’t hear a peep from those same people regarding Barack Obama’s little-discussed deportation order that he enacted on his way out the door.
Thousands of oppressed Cubans continue to seek refuge elsewhere to escape the Castro regime’s iron fist. Nevertheless, Obama, who extended unbefitting olive branches to the Cuban government, broke longstanding protocol by making a sly, last-minute decision to ban and ultimately deport defectors who land on American soil. Those who were hoping to be protected under the U.S. “wet foot-dry foot” policy suddenly aren’t.
As Obama explained it, “Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal. By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries.” Chances are, most leftists who see that quote without any attribution could mistake it for a Trump directive. The Left has a serious problem with selective outcry, which depends entirely on who is in office and the political circumstances.