Wednesday, February 01, 2017 by JD Heyes
When President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order during his first week in office temporarily banning admission to the United States from nations deemed to be terrorist hotbeds, any sensible political observer knew that, at some point, he was going to get pushback from the angry Left.
It happened over the weekend, when a liberal federal judge in New York issued an order blocking part of Trump’s order on some goofy grounds that migrants have more rights than the president does in protecting the country.
As reported by The Associated Press, the emergency order attempts to bar the U.S. from deporting people who originate from countries that are subject to Trump’s travel ban, with the judge, in her ruling, claiming that travelers who have been detained have a strong argument that their legal rights are being violated. (RELATED: Stay current with the Trump administration at WhiteHouse.news)
Following the late-Saturday evening ruling, the Department of Homeland Security followed up early Sunday with a statement claiming that the court’s ruling had no effect on the general implementation of the executive order, and that it only affects a relatively small number of travelers who were inconvenienced by some security procedures when they returned to the U.S.
The Daily Stormer, quoting from the AP, noted further:
“The emergency order was issued by U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York Saturday night after lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union filed a court petition on behalf of people from seven predominantly Muslim nations who were detained at airports across the country as the ban took effect.”
The order seeks to prevent U.S. customs and border agents from removing anyone who comes to the U.S. with a valid visa from one of several Middle Eastern countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia, all of which are hotbeds of terrorist activity. In addition, the order covers people with approved refugee applications.
Trump said that his order was necessary to stop “radical Islamic terrorists” from entering the U.S. The order includes a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. by people from the aforementioned countries, as well as a 120-day suspension of the U.S. refugee program.
But on the surface, at least, Donnelly – appointed by President Obama, confirmed 95–2 by the Senate, and a close family friend of Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. – does not have the authority to stop any president from issuing such an order.
As reported by The National Sentinel, the law could not be clearer: Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “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.” (RELATED: Find up-to-date news and information about U.S. national security at NationalSecurity.news)
So, whether people have valid green cards or visas makes no difference, legally speaking; a president’s executive order, when issued in a manner protective of national security, is not subject to a federal court’s whimsical rulings about the “rights” of people who are guests in the United States, not citizens.
Besides, if it is just a matter of a few green card holders, then that issue is likely to get ironed out fairly quickly. But the White House needs to make it crystal clear to this judge: “You’re not in charge of U.S. national security; the president is.”
Then there is the matter of precedence. As reported by The Daily Caller, the past six presidents have all used the same statute to block classes of migrants and/or immigrants from entering the U.S. That includes Obama:
— In July 2011, Obama issued an order barring the entry of “anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists; those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries; or transnational criminal organizations.
— In April 2012, he banned entry of anyone “facilitating computer or network disruption that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the government of Iran and Syria; anyone who ha[s] sold or provided goods, services, or technology to Iran or Syria likely to be used for such purposes; or to have materially assisted anyone whose property or interests are described.”