Posted on 02/06/2017 5:08:39 AM PST by SJackson
A federal district court judge in the state of Washington temporarily blocked the enforcement of President Trumps Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (Jan. 27, 2017). The executive order had suspended the admission refugees to the United States, including from Syria, and of non-U.S. resident travelers from seven majority Muslim countries considered prone to terrorism. U.S. District Judge James L. Robart, who acted last Friday in a case brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota, specified that his decision is to be implemented nationwide. In issuing his temporary restraining order, the judge found that the states had standing to bring the case, that they were likely to succeed on its merits, and that a temporary restraining order was in the public interest. Not surprisingly, President Trump tweeted his displeasure with Judge Robarts decision.
President Trump has every right to be upset on the merits of Judge Robarts action, even if his use of the phrase so-called in describing the judge may have been a tad over the top. Instead, President Trump might have used the words irresponsible or reckless in characterizing a decision that is a clear violation of the Constitutions separation of powers and is potentially detrimental to national security.
Despite the presidents objections, the Trump administration appears to be complying with Judge Robarts decision to date. However the Department of Justice appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately reverse what Judge Robart had done and restore President Trumps entry suspension order. The appeals court declined to do so right away. It set forth a briefing schedule calling for the plaintiffs to file their papers by 3am ET on Monday and for the Department of Justice to reply by 6pm ET.
President Trump acted well within his constitutional and statutory authority to issue his executive order. The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty, the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.
Congress reaffirmed the presidents power with respect to decisions excluding aliens in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was originally enacted in 1952, and has been amended several times, including in 1996. The following language has remained intact: 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. (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).
President Trumps executive order, in the interest of protecting national security, directed changes to the policy and process of admitting non-citizens into the United States. It was intended to provide a period of review for relevant agencies to evaluate current procedures and to propose and implement new procedures. The purpose falls squarely within the presidents constitutional and statutory authority and responsibility, as stated in the executive order, to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to allow the opportunity for appropriate review and proposal of changes to procedures for the protection of national security, the executive order suspended for 90 days entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It suspended, for 120 days, the United States Refugee Admission Program, with the exception of Syria where the suspension is indefinite. After the refugee suspension ends, the Secretary of State will have the authority to prioritize applicants on the basis of religious-based persecution provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individuals country of nationality.
While the affected countries are all Muslim majority countries, they represent only seven out of the 56 Muslim majority countries that belong to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Out of the ten countries with the largest Muslim population, only one country Iran is on the executive orders list of seven. Non-Muslims as well as Muslims from the seven countries would be affected by the executive order. The countries themselves were selected on the basis of their being nurturing grounds for the export of terrorism, a perfectly rational basis to distinguish one country from another for the purposes of national security. No invidious discrimination is involved.
Nevertheless, without any legal analysis and lacking access to the kind of classified information on threats to national security that the president of the United States has at his disposal, Judge Robart took it upon himself to substitute his judgment for the presidents. The judge gave unwarranted deference to the speculative, vague interests asserted by the states of Washington and Minnesota, who claimed without any concrete evidence that the temporary suspension of entry of aliens from the seven countries adversely affects their own States residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. This preposterous conclusory assertion overlooks the fact that the affected individuals temporarily barred from entering the country are not residents of these states and are not entitled to the states protection. Moreover, the states are overlooking their responsibility to protect the safety of their actual residents, which the executive order is designed to assist in doing. The federal executive branch is charged with the responsibility for protecting all of the American people from national security threats, including but not limited to the people of Washington and Minnesota.
Judge Robart goes even further afield in giving deference to the states unsupported claim that the executive order would inflict damage on their own operations, tax base and public education system. Under this theory, individual states would have the right to challenge any federal policy decision on the basis of virtually any claim of possible harm to their states more parochial interests. The result would be to upend the relationship between the federal and state governments under our constitutional system. In any case, by declaring that his order would have to be implemented nationally, Judge Robart improperly imputed to the other 48 states the claims of the two states before him that are actually within his jurisdiction to adjudicate. Indeed, a federal district court in Massachusetts reached a contrary conclusion on the very same day that Judge Robart issued his decision. In a far more thorough opinion, the federal district court in Massachusetts determined that President Trumps executive order was a lawful exercise of the political branches plenary control over the admission of aliens into the United States. There is no basis for disregarding this opinion and making Judge Robarts scantily reasoned decision the law of the land nationwide.
During oral argument, Judge Robart said to the Department of Justice attorney, "You're here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the US from these individuals coming from these countries, and there's no support for that. His observation, which he asserted without any proof on the record, is irrelevant. The countries were selected based on a list of countries of concern compiled previously by the Obama administration. They all have been proven unable to control both terrorism within their borders and the export of terrorism outside of their borders. President Trump had a rational basis for the selection of the countries subject to the temporary suspension. It is not within Judge Robarts constitutional authority to substitute his judgment for the presidents on such matters of national security. He failed to meet the test he himself stated in his decision: "The role assigned to the court is not to create policy, and it is not to judge the wisdom of the policy created by the other two branches."
As for those objecting to the prioritization of persecuted religious minorities for future refugee status, they may want to read the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which describes exactly what those religious minorities are facing in Syria, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and Africa today. Genocide is defined as any of a number of acts such as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm or forcibly transferring children, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Persecuted Christians in that part of the world surely fall into that category.
Moreover, a refugee is defined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Does anyone seriously believe that Christians would be safe to return to countries such as Syria, Iraq or Libya today?
Judge Robart exceeded his judicial authority and has potentially put Americans at needless risk. If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does not promptly reverse his reckless decision, the Department of Justice will need to take this case directly to the Supreme Court.
That politicized and activist judge doesn’t care about the Constitution, or the authority for the President to decide who can and cannot enter the country.
I bet he was given money from and a promise by Soros. There’s nothing that Nazi b@stard won’t do to advance his globalist agenda.
Uh, well no.
His entire contribution has been frivolous.
NBC and journo Lester Holt went all in w/ the caterwauling.
Holt's Statue of Liberty report was insanely biased; failing to mention that Pres Trump's actions apply to:
<><> organized refugee cabals plotting to overthrow the US govt,
<><> individuals plotting to annihilate our laws and Constitution, and,
<><> America-haters looking to establish a govt of THEIR choosing based on their fanatical religious leanings.
==============================================
Sap-happy Lester Holt is braindead.......his Statue of Liberty report doesnt point out that those who headed for our shores back then did NOT arrive having a dedicated game plan hatched in their homelands to kill and harm Americans.
To comment on NBCNews.com or an NBC News program:
EMAIL contact.nbcnews@nbcuni.com
SNAIL MAIL NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112
Hmmmm....Now let me see....who else has ties to Brooklyn? Could it be Hillary?
It was a temporary order by Donnelly which she let run out.
So who made the call to Robart? Sounds like right out of Hillary's playbook.
Wonder why Obama has been silent.
Very likely Judge Shopping among the 677 Federal District Court Judges. On any given issue one of them is likely to be eager to legislate from the bench based on emotional arguments.
His reasons and motivations, anger me, but are unimportant. I am not a trump fan, but I want a wall. We need to move on and dismantle this activism or we will get nothing.
One can only hope that:
A) There are no immigrant-related terrorist attacks, but
B) if there are any, let them affect him.
Like I said....where's Hillary?? Where's Obama??
Why has chuckie gone silent?? Cuz they told him to shut up...after the supposed crying jag.
It shall not stand. (Isaiah 7:7 KJV)
This will not stand. (The Big Lebowski)
Feral “judges”. Putting Islamoterrorists ahead of the American people. It’s time these bastards start running for these jobs. The politicians aren’t smart enough to figure out what is good for the American people. It’s time we start doing it for ourselves.
It is clear that judges have become political pawns that Lifetime Appointments should be done away with, and all judges should stand for re-appointment or election - and not like most judgeships on the ballots where there is only one candidate.
Easy fix, ship all the “refugees” to just Washington and Minnesota until this is resolved.
If Robart doesn’t want to be called a “so called” judge then he should act like a judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.