One more time, for the Stupid Liberals, here is the US Code Justifying Trump’s Executive Order

by John Galt
January 28, 2017 23:20 ET

I’m going to try this one more time.

After hours of incessant arguing with stupid assed liberals that the Executive Order issued by President Trump regarding the restrictions on refugees and immigration from seven nations which impacts not just refugees, but all immigrants from those targeted nations, it would appear that the “law” only applies when their boy is in power; not any other President.

Here is the pertinent law, Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182, courtesy of Cornell University Law’s website:

(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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Now how hard is that to understand?

Apparently for a Federal Judge who has zero experience in the fields of national security and immigration regulatory structure, that would be zero, zip, nada. Good thing she’s listening to her sponsor, one Senator Chuck Schumer who is determined to sabotage President Trump, when using her family law experience to write this stay.

Amazingly enough, all of these whining losers on the Democrat side were silent when Obama shut down Iraqi refugees from entering the U.S. for almost a year (via Politico April 24, 2015):

 U.S. restarts refugee program for Iraqis

A special U.S. refugee program for Iraqis is back up and running this month after being largely suspended almost a year ago due to growing insecurity in the Arab country, POLITICO has learned.

But the backlog is huge: At least 57,000 Iraqis have applied for a chance to resettle in America.

The refugee program is aimed at assisting Iraqis at risk because they have a connection to the United States, such as working for U.S. companies or the U.S. military — or being related to people who have done such work.

Last June, as Islamic State militants gained territory in Iraq, the U.S. pulled out staffers in Baghdad who were interviewing the applicants. The decision put thousands of Iraqis in limbo just as violence in the country was once again soaring and anyone with ties to the United States was in even greater danger.

In other words, President Obama and the DEMOCRATS ABONDONED thousands of pro-U.S. Iraqis twisting in the wind as ISIS was gaining territory and executing them because of Obama’s inaction in the region. The crickets and Junior Ben Matlock’s were silent then but now? Oh my God, Trump wants to commit genocide if you listen to their garbage tonight on Twitter and elsewhere on social media.

To simplify this for the simpletons, I’m posting the entire text of the Executive Order issued by President Trump yesterday:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
January 27, 2017

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 27, 2017.

Someone, please help me. Where is the word “Muslim” anywhere in the text of this Executive Order or the US Code?

  • Bustednuckles

    Libtards are immune to facts man.
    That judge lady best be getting her things in order because she apparently has missed the fact that Obama is not the president anymore and that things are going to be different than they used to be.
    Thank God.

    Phil, AKA Bustednuckles from The Vulgar Curmudgeon.

    • GOTcommonSENSE

      Yea, I loved living in a peaceful America
      Now all we have is all you War hungry Tea Party Americans

      • I want to bring all of our troops home. Or is Libertarian ideology way too difficult for you to comprehend?

        • Sigkim

          Howdy. It is amazing so many folks simply can’t accept the fact that the law is on President Trumps side with the revelation of, 8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f). (New to me as of three days ago).

          Another blogger whos name I wont mention, posted an article regarding immigration where U.S. Code on “discrimination”, was highlighted, yet one has do dig into the comment section below to find folks referring to 8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f)….with some not very pleased this was not included in the original article.

          “The whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, comes to mind.

          Thank you!

      • D Davis

        It wasn’t so peaceful at the Orlando night club.

        • litespeed74

          Your point? Home Grown terrorist did this. Tell me how this ban would have prevented that horrible attack? I’ll wait.

          • CharlaS

            ‘Homegrown’ terrorist whose daddy was Taliban.

          • litespeed74

            again….so how would have stopping this dude at the airport he didn’t fly into prevent this??

          • litespeed74

            again, how would this have prevented an attack?

  • Longboy

    More like ordinary Libs watching Repub World using the book and getting hit with real life concerns.

  • Pingback: One more time, for Clarity, here is the US Code Justifying Trump’s Executive Order - The Daily Coin()

  • Wesley2006

    You may or may not have a valid point – nonetheless, when you call your audience ‘stupid’ right out of the starting gate when you, yourself, use the pen name ‘John Galt’ – well, let’s just say that you’ve shot yourself in the foot long before even touching finger to keyboard & leave it at that.

    • roger

      He didn’t broad-brush his entire audience, just ‘the stupid ones’, hence those who refuse to read the actual law. Including you obviously……

    • Ten years later, two national radio shows later, and I guess my foot is pretty sore. This is the type of comment I expect from stupid liberals (as if there are any other type of liberals). By the way how is WesleyisaStupidLibral.com working out for you?

      • Wesley2006

        Oh dear. Oscar Wilde is most certainly rolling over in his grave. Ten years of ‘professional’ media experience & your best shot is a stale dot-com retort? Well, again, what can one honestly expect from an Ayn Rand fanboy?

        • Oh, I don’t know, being a fan boy of rational Libertarian ideology is certainly better than sucking up to Karl Marx whose ideology had killed tens of millions of innocent people.

          I’m sure that your relevance to society is about that of crack addict being shot dead in the streets of Chicago.

      • GOTcommonSENSE

        Hows the Tea Party. Or should i say the Trumpettes Tea Party!
        Your leader was the leader of the Birthers.. enough said

        • I know liberals and leftists are a little slow, but if one scans my blog back to November, I did not vote nor endorse President Trump. So bzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttt wrongo Charlie, no life time supply of Pop-Tarts for you!

        • D Davis

          Hillary was the birther leader

  • Pingback: Another George W Bush Appointee Favors Terrorists over Taxpayers – Shenandoah()

  • Morgan King

    Maybe try reading the rest of Title 8. This section posted is subordinate to the Nondiscrimination section of § 1152:

    No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

    • Maybe try reading the Court rulings on 1152 v. 1182(f). 1182(f) had held precedence in all cases. I would refer you to Andrew McCarthy’s excellent breakdown of the flawed logic of those screaming the 1152 argument, but it is a waste of time as the understanding that National Security supersedes the right to a visa has been held by the SCOTUS throughout history. Deference has always been given to the Executive Branch authority to selectively restrict immigration as was the case with the Obama’s imposition of a ban on Iraqi immigration (2011-2012 and 2014-2015) along with Clinton, Reagan, and Carter. Your logic is 100% flawed and irrelevant to the case law already decided and precedents put into place by the SCOTUS over the last 20 years.

      • GOTcommonSENSE

        National Security would supersede in times of WAR.
        Obama never banned Irag immigration. What he did was suspend/delay issuance of Visas. Total difference between Trumps Muslim ban, and delaying issuance of Visas to vett?
        Go it now

        • Ah, another liberal revisionist.

          1. Obama renewed the national emergency declaration with the renewal of NDAA in February 2016. He also declared that the “state of national emergency including war powers acts is valid due to the threat of Islamic terrorism.” This declaration enabled him to actually declare a blanket ban on immigration during 2011-2012 (6 months) and 2014-2015 (almost a year). Don’t believe me? Go to your trusted #FakeNews source ABC or CNN and do your own research.

          2. Once again, per the article which you obviously did not read, where does the word “Muslim” appear in the Executive Order.

          Still waiting on someone to point that out to me.

          • Gary Denton

            How many dozens of instances of this being called a “Muslim Ban” by Trump and White House appointees do you need before you concede that the administration named it?

          • Regardless of what he called it, that is not legally admissible when reviewing the actual Executive Order. It’s called statutory definition, which is quite clear in the information posted above.

        • CharlaS

          There is no ‘MUSLIM BAN’.

      • Morgan King

        I’d refer you to Red State’s excellent breakdown of the issue. The salient point is made that:

        “I think Bier’s argument is even more persuasive when you note that the non-discrimination provision in section 1152(a) says it applies “[e]xcept as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title.” In other words, Congress carved out specific exceptions to the general nondiscrimination rule, and section 1182(f) was not one of the listed exceptions. That analysis strongly indicates that the rule of section 1182(f) is not an exception to the nondiscrimination rule in section 1152(a).

        • I’m going to refer you to the rebuttal by Andrew McCarthy to Red State’s and Bier’s argument. It was much more defined, and actually highlights the harmony of 1152 (a) and 1182(f). The truth is that court rulings have held 1182(f) which is the President’s power to suspend, not permanently ban, immigration from anywhere for any reason for reasons of national security. The Judge which issued the TRO failed to quote or refer to any legal writings or rulings to support his argument as did Bier and Red State’s take. In the end, this will end up before the SCOTUS again and the 9th Circus, Bier, and Red State will ultimately be held as incorrect as issues of the nation’s security will supersede the flawed reasoning presented by those parties.

          Here is Andrew McCarthy’s rebuttal:
          http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444471/mccarthy-patterico-trump-immigration-order

          • Herb1949

            I wish that I could agree with you on this issue, but with the activist judges on the SC today, I foresee a tie vote, which would end up upholding the lower court decision.

            What will really be bad is if one of the people let in, during the time this stay is in effect, actually makes a terrorist attack. That is what bothers me about this whole screwed up situation.

          • I hope you’re wrong because it basically means a judge can over rule the President on any national security issue, a precedent which is both dangerous and foolish.

          • No Comment

            Better than the alternative, in which the President can rule by fiat simply by claiming a national security necessity.

        • Further legal citations from Byron York’s excellent analysis of the Government’s rebuttal at the 9th Circuit:

          Judicial second-guessing of the president’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952) (“[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government.”). “[I]t is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543; see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999).

    • UncleSlam

      where does it say that in the EO? iT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT PART.

    • sfchuck

      There is NO discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, etc. The issue is SOLELY based on the president’s statutory authority (8 USC 1182f) to implement a temporary restriction on immigration OF ANY PERSON OR GROUIP FOR AS LONG AS REQUIRED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS.

      Left wingers continue their infantile whining and foot-stamping because they think they can exploit them for political gain, i.e., delegitimizing President Trump’s presidency by subverting his appointments, agenda.

      Of course, the only people who are supporting these petulant children are their own kind, who constitute a small minority of the population.

    • Raymond Rogers

      Let me ask you libs something. Do all 8 billion people on the planet have a right to be in the United States? Countries define their borders and are charged with protecting and providing opportunity to the citizenry of that said nation. The United States government is charged with taking care of United States citizens, not the third world.

      • Morgan King

        I’m not a liberal, but to your question, do they have a ‘right’? I guess it depends on where you think human rights come from – are we talking about natural rights or legal rights?

        Borders exist to designate where laws are applied, and that’s pretty much it. The Founding Fathers were believers in the Enlightenment ideal of freedom of movement and included provisions for them in the original Articles of Confederation, and following from that, we’ve had a many-centuries long national position of being open to immigrants, of being a free country for the world’s people to live in and believe what they choose, and as a safe harbor for those who are fleeing oppression and seeking opportunity.

        Nobody’s asking the United States to take care of people here unlawfully, as they don’t have access to hardly any of the social services that citizens have. You can’t get a real job, you can’t get welfare, etc, so what do I care if somebody’s mother overstays their visa to live with their daughter and cleans houses on the weekend? I’d rather provide an efficient path to some form of lawful residence than have an underclass of unlawful residents, but I’m not particularly concerned by it.

        As for the role of the US, we live in a deeply connected world and have been the dominant power in it for a century – it’s absurd to think our responsibilities end at the border, especially when we’ve so inextricably inserted ourselves into every aspect of the world’s nations. If we step back from that, you can be assured that China and Russia will step in.

        As for all 8 billion, well we’d probably need to expand a bit (but I guess if the rest of the world is depopulated that wouldn’t be a problem). That’s 8 billion more workers, 8 billion more consumers, 8 billion more taxpayers, 8 billion more people living in a society with a Constitution drafted with the best of Enlightenment ideals behind it – that’s fine with me.

        • Raymond Rogers

          Nations exist for two primary functions. The first is defense, the second for the general welfare of it’s citizenry. These are the goals of any functioning state, regardless of whether the said state is autocratic or democratic. Essentially these are existential goals and coalesce around the the individual’s desire for self-preservation.

          The founders of this country did not operate outside of existential desires, nor did they reject the notion of a “state”. To this end immigration, is not, nor never was a higher priority. To state as much would be to ignore what was availiable on terms of resourse

        • Raymond Rogers

          This is a continuation of the last post. I am doing this from a phone and accidentally hit the submit button.

          As I was saying the founders saw the continent as abundant, seemingly vast and open and able to support many people. The labor need was very different than what it was today. But there is one constant with this- along with the purpose of a state, the purpose of immigration also has a historical president. Immigration has always been used to benifit the citizens of a state. To put it bluntly, immigrants exist in a said country to benifit the citizens of the country, not the other way around.

          I suspect the apathy towards lawlessness may derive from your lack of fear of being replaced by an illegal immigrants, but that is just a hunch. This leads into my next point, that an illegal alien, in most cases, displaces an American from his or her job, or drives down wages in the very least. There are very few jobs where one particular individual is the only person worthwhile in undertaking the functions of that job.

          You could not be any more wrong about an illegal alien being able to get welfare benefits. The applications for such do not require enforcable citizenship requirements. Nor does medical care, of which is a big ticket item under the federal budget.

          And should these illegals have the advantage over people who have submitted to the legal system? Since when is the criminal more noble than the individual with virtue? I reject this nonsense. Individuals who enter or stay without the permission of a state are mere invaders, and nothing more.

          And you know as well as I that this country cannot sustain one billion people with the same standard of living, much less eight billion. The laws of supply and demand are just as rigid as any law of physics.

  • litespeed74

    So funny how all the arguments now have to deal with the question if the POTUS has power to do this or that…we’ve forgotten to ask the simple question. would this temporary ban make us safer??? Will this stupid ban prevent any kind of terror attack at all? Do we need to go about fighting terrorism THIS WAY??
    The fact is that the answer is NO on all of this. Man alive people. common sense.

    • Yes, it buys us time to improve our vetting process hence it does make us safer by introducing a pause. Even if the 9th or SCOTUS rules against President Trump, he can order a 90 day FREEZE on all immigration and accepting any applications if need be until the process can be streamlined and cleaned up. What you missed is that Obama pushed through thousands of refugees and visas with insufficient background checks or investigations and thus now we really do not have a handle on how many terrorists may have made it here. Worse, they probably came via Europe complicating the deep background investigations to properly vet those individuals so now we have to tie down resources to monitor their movements in the U.S.

      • litespeed74

        So how did Obama ‘push through’ thousands? I’m no Obama fan but to make an accusation that he did it requires some proof.

        • Over 70,000 refugees from Syria and Libya in 2016 alone, most in his last 6 months in office. 500 arrived the day before the inauguration and the vetting accepted was shaky at best, since the State Department just had them sign letters stating they were not members of or associated with terrorist groups. That was the extent of their vetting in the final days.

          • CharlaS

            However, under Taqiya in Sharia law, it is permissible to LIE to advance Islam.

      • Gary Denton

        “What you missed is that Obama pushed through thousands of refugees and visas with insufficient background checks or investigations and thus now we really do not have a handle on how many terrorists may have made it here.”
        Is a spurious unproven argument that ignores the extensive and time-consuming vetting that did in fact take place. That is such an outrageous claim without any evidence to back it up, and numerous arguments that can be made against it that it is counterfactual on its face.

        • 72 from those countries listed in the E.O. convicted of terrorism in the past 3 years. But then again, facts do not matter to liberals, so why do I waste my time.

          • No Comment

            Convicted, where? Here?
            No – which sort of shows the existing vetting was working.

          • You haven’t been paying attention. 72 from the 7 listed nations arrested and convicted here, AFTER they got past Obama’s non-existent vetting. I’m not going to continue specious arguments with people who don’t pay attention to the news and FACTS. It’s a waste of my time and bandwidth.

        • No Comment

          “Is a spurious unproven argument”

          And an oft-repeated one. Trump never said the existing vetting was inadequate, he said it DIDN’T EXIST. This of course is simpleton campaign bloviation, and should not result in actual policy based on such utterances.

          You’d think that the defense of this EO would include some basic outline of the nature of the perceived deficiencies in the existing vetting process, if they could. The Defense didn’t do that, which suggests they couldn’t do that. All we got was repetition of the elusive ‘safety’ factor.

          Also, the suspension of the ban doesn’t prevent the Trump admin from working on whatever fixes they believed are necessary. We don’t see any discussion of that.

    • T3

      How do you know that that this ban would not make us any safer? That is a specious argument and devoid of any common sense whatsoever. I prefer to err on the side of safety. You would feel differently if your family were hacked to pieces by someone who should not have been allowed in this country. In addition, this ban is for 90 days. It is trivial in the scheme of things. Obama’s was 6 months. Oh, but it was Obama. A different standard is applied to him. How ludicrous. Trump is doing what he promised when he was running for president and now he is implementing those promises. How refreshing. The partisan arguments are vacuous at best.

  • Pingback: What Goes Around Comes Around, Democrats: And If You Had Any Decency Or Wisdom, You’d Already Have Learned That By Now | Start Thinking Right()

  • kcahcstulp

    I’m far from knowledgeable on these topics, but I thought executive orders are not capable of overturning laws passed by congress. In this case, wouldn’t the Immigration act of 1965 invalidate Trump’s executive order since the Immigration act eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration? Additionally, wouldn’t the immigration act supersede US Code 1182 since the US Code was passed in 1952?

    • No. The 1965 addition to the immigration act was to prevent racial discrimination, not to prevent immigration to the U.S. nor does it supersede National Security concerns as outlined in numerous Appeals and SCOTUS rulings. The liberals use this as a shield claiming it is the primary legal basis for blocking 1182(f) however, in every case since 1968, the SCOTUS or Appellate courts found that the Executive Branch holds final say over immigration issues.

  • There was no major difference between Obama’s ban and Trump’s other than Obama used an administrative action and Trump used an E.O.

    • No Comment

      What???
      Obama’s ban didn’t actually ban anyone. It called for a review of previously processed refugee applications which indirectly resulted in a significant slowing, but never a stoppage of refugee entrants from Iraq. It also ened the visa waiver program for those 7 nations listed. I’m summarizing and perhaps being too general, but the significant differences in the origin and action of the two ‘bans’ is significant.

      Secondly, Obama’s action was based on specific knowledge of a specific threat prompted by the specific outcome of a specific investigation. Trumps was not, at all, like that.
      Trumps ban was based on a specific campaign promise, nothing more.

      • You’re an f’in liar. Obama had a blanket ban on all refugees from Iraq in 2011-2012 and again in 2015. Or is the news something you make up or just receive from CNN, America’s #FakeNews leader?

  • There was one discussed on the radio (Jay Sekulow I think) which highlighted the right of the President to deny refugee status to Africans and the suit was dismissed as the refugees did not have standing. I can’t cite it off the top of my head.

  • Tollyho

    First, I would like to convey my sincere appreciation of the comments expressed in this section. This truly is an example of how discourse should be joined between citizens with diverse and opposing views and ideologies. I thank you all. My view on this topic is that while it is proper to look to the entire language in a given statute or section thereof, it is not always proper (or even practicable) to assign meanings found in ancillary statutes to arrive at the operation of the former. 1182(f) is clear on its face and needs no further legal contortion in order to arrive at its meaning or effect. The fact that the executive branch is the sole authority under (f) has no ‘wiggle room’. The District Court cited lack of evidence, i.e., and chided the defendant for its lack of persuasive argument ( a point well made in my opinion). However, the language in (f) clearly has no requirement for the government to cite reasons, evidence, or other justifications for its application of the statute. Nowhere does (f) state, ‘when it has been established that…’, or, ‘if evidence clearly shows…’. It does clearly state that ‘When the President finds……..he may by proclomation,.and for such period as he shall deem necessary…”. This should have been the governments argument, and any attempt for the Justices to try to take it elsewhere should have been vigorously challenged.

    • I just want to thank you. Yes, as owner I have deleted some comments only because they were obscene. In the mean time, please enjoy commenting when you feel. I’ll let it fly unless there are attacks on the ownership (me) or other posters.

    • No Comment

      You say ” Nowhere does (f) state, ‘when it has been established that…'”
      Ahh, but it DOES, and you cite the relevant passage unknowingly.
      “When the President finds….”

      Finds, references a condition in which a finding has been made. A finding refers to a conclusion reached by means of an inquiry into relevant facts and the arrival of determination based on those facts. It is not the same as saying “When the President has a hunch that….”.

      If the law had meant for this to be a matter of whim, they would not have used that word, “finds”. They would have said “when the President makes an ignorant and absurd campaign promise and upon reaching office feels compelled to mollify his base by keeping the promise, however uninformed or unmoored from any basis in reality or common sense it may be, he may, by proclamation… et cetera”

      OK I stretch it just a bit, but if it were meant to be a matter of simple opinion, it would have said “when it is the Presidents utterly uninformed opinion that…. etc.”. Or, they might have worded it thus: “When the President wakes up a wittle cwanky and weawy, weawy wants to stick it to somebody, somewhere, he may, by proclamation……”

      But seriously folks, the law is written, as one would expect, to put some burden of rational analysis on the executive and to not allow this to be something done on a whim or as an act of political appeasement. I had a little fun with the optional wording but in all honesty I struggle to come up with wording that would grant latitude for such an abominably conceived and abysmally executed order.

  • Jay

    From a “stupid liberal” who is not a lawyer, but who has had learned basic U.S. Civics in school, ANY law or code is reviewable by the courts if a plantiff can prove that he has been harmed. Just because a law says that the President has certain powers does not mean that those powers are Constitutional. They are valid only until someone challenges them and the court finds based on other laws (which may be contradicatory) or the prededents of former rulings that the plantiff’s rights have been violated.

    I’d like to add that if, as you claim, the case is so clear-cut, the Justice Dept attorneys could not persuade the court in their favor, that points to the Administration’s incompetence in hiring and general handling of issues.

    • There was not defined actual proof of “harm” to the states involved only “implied” or “future potential” as defined in their filings and during the appeals hearing. Implications of future harm does not meet the standard for standing.

      The DoJ lawyer was an Obama hack so to expect an inspired performance would be like expecting Bill Clinton to keep his trousers zipped in the Oval Office.

      Now that Sessions has been confirmed, look for all US Attorneys to be fired, just like Obama did, and competent counsel put into place.

      • Jay

        Again, there WAS proof of harm or the courts would not have heard the case. Just because you do not agree with their reasoning does not mean that it is not valid. As to the Administration’s competence, frankly, I don’t care who hired the lawyer arguing the case. The White House had to have known that this would be challenged, and if he had doubts about the counsel that would have been representing them, the President should have waited until his team was in place. The whole process has been a trainwreck from the beginning. The way that they tried to change the treatment of Green Card holders midstream is proof that this Order was ill-considered.

        • I’m not going to argue the execution, it was moronic.

          However, regarding standing, the reason you provided does not hold legal water, unless of course you file in an ultra-liberal court in the 9th Circus where the Constitution is written on an Etch-A-Sketch for those clowns.

          • Gary Denton

            And what was your reasoning in rejecting the opinion of the first conservative judge who rejected Trump’s arguments?

          • The first judge was hardly “conservative” if you would check your facts (which liberals check at the door every day). Robards was nominated via Patty Murray an extremist left wing nutjob in exchange for two other Bush nominees to get through the Senate. It’s Bush’s fault for accepting this so-called judge then again that era of horse-swapping in politics is over.

  • Peter Balzer

    How do you expect the liberals to understand something as complex as US Code 1182 when they cannot grasp a concept as easy as “shall not be infringed” in the 2nd amendment? Asking for a friend…

    • Gary Denton

      As conservatives cannot grasp the concept of “well regulated” and pretend it meant something different?

  • CharlaS

    Trump should take lessons from President Andrew Jackson. The Supreme Court sided with the Cherokee Indians but Jackson went ahead and ordered Gen. Winfield Scott to begin the Cherokee removal in 1838 (which I disagree with). He said of Chief Justice Marshall, “Let HIM enforce it [the ruling].” And went ahead and did what he wanted to. The Courts are only ONE PART of the 3 branches of government: EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL. To automatically bow to the court is wrong.

  • Lawrence Oliver

    Umm… It’s not hard to understand it is just hard to find in Title 8 U.S. Code 1182… Please show me the specific section in which you are quoting. Believe me I am not against the ban, but I would very much like to know exactly where you are finding this quote in 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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.”

    because I was not able to find it in that document.

    • Title 8, Chapter 12, USC 1182(f)

      Or are you incapable of clicking on a “link”?

      • Lawrence Oliver

        I did click the link and read through the whole thing twice and did not find that text. Like I said in my post. If you can find it great post a screen shot. Believe me I would very much like to see it, I am not against the ban and I do think the President is with his legal rights to impose the ban. From top to bottom I did not see a section or subsection (f) that is titles “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President” or that paragraph that follows. Now if you click the link you will see what I’m talking about or I’ll be very happy for you to prove me wrong.

        • Kleindienst v. Mandel

          408 U.S. 753 (1972)

          An alien who had been invited by U.S. citizens to participate in academic
          conferences in the United States was denied entry as a result of a
          statutory exclusion for aliens who promote communism. The Attorney General declined to waive the statutory exclusion. The Supreme Court held that the Attorney General had properly exercised his discretion in denying a waiver. The Court declined to examine the substance of the Attorney General’s decision or to engage in balancing the decision against the First Amendment rights of the U.S. citizens who had invited the alien to speak at the conferences.

          Ernest Mandel was a Belgian national and well-known Marxist scholar who was invited by Stanford University to speak at an academic conference. Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provided at the time that aliens who advocated communism or write about the doctrine of communism would be excluded from admission into the United States. Mandel had been allowed to enter the United States to speak at academic conferences in the past, relying on a waiver to the § 212(a) exclusion. On this occasion, the Attorney General declined to waive the exclusion. Mandel and the U.S. citizens who had invited him filed a claim to compel the Attorney General to waive the statutory exclusion on the grounds that refusal to waive infringed on the U.S. citizens’ First Amendment right to freely receive information and ideas.

          The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Attorney General had properly declined to waive the statutory exclusion and that the U.S. citizen plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights had not been infringed upon. The Court cited the Chinese Exclusion Case, reaffirming that the power to exclude aliens is a power inherent to every sovereign state. The Court also reaffirmed that as part of this sovereign power, Congress has the right to exclude aliens and to delegate discretion to the Attorney General to waive the exclusion. The Court held that because the Attorney General’s decision not to waive was “facially legitimate” and “bona fide,” the Court would not consider the substance of the decision, nor would it engage in balancing against the First Amendment interests of the U.S. citizen plaintiff-appellants.
          The Court also expressed a policy concern that compelling waivers to §
          212(a) on the grounds that it prevented U.S. citizens from receiving an
          alien’s ideas would open the door to requiring waivers to every alien
          with whom a U.S. citizen would like to speak.

          Justice Douglas’s dissent rejected the notion of an unfettered right for Congress to exclude aliens, declaring both the majority holding in this case and that of the Chinese Exclusion Case to be constitutionally
          impermissible. His dissent argued that absent a threat to national
          security, it would be impermissible for Congress to exclude aliens based
          on their race or ideology.

          Justices Marshall and Brennan dissented jointly, holding that not only did the Attorney General’s refusal to waive the exclusion violate the First Amendment, but that §212(a) was unconstitutional. They argued that strict scrutiny applied, under the theory that the U.S. citizen plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were implicated because excluding Mandel prevented the citizens from receiving his ideas and engaging in ideological discourse with him. Their dissent also examined the Attorney General’s rationale for refusing a waiver and found it unreasonable. Further, the Justices argued that § 212(a) was overbroad because excluding all aliens who have advocated communist doctrine did not implicate any compelling government interest.

  • Uh, the amended version has been ruled non-applicable in every case by the courts where the travel bans were ordered since 1968. Try reading more than just one biased opinion.

    • Gary Denton

      False – it is the 1952 statute that was amended and is no longer applicable. The courts have cited the Mandel decision in ruling against Trump this year.

      • Read the ruling I posted above and get back to me. It was in 1972. Google is your friend.

        • Gary Denton

          Google is your friend, reading comprehension isn’t yours.
          Courts are citing the 1972 ruling in rejecting Trump’s actions.

          • That ruling validated 1182(f) but I doubt seriously you have the basic legal comprehension skills to understand that. The rulings the assclowns in the 9th cited were procedural rulings totally unrelated to 1182(f) or the President’s statutory authority regarding immigration. I don’t expect you to understand that because you suckle on the Soros Fake News narrative but maybe your mom can explain it to you when she serves your meatloaf to you in your really really cool basement pad.

          • No Comment

            If you have a point to make, you can make it without the ‘soros’ defense. If you can’t cross the finish line with out limping on that crutch, you’re not worthy of the race. I’d disagreed with you, but had respected what appeared to be rigor, up to the point I read that. You utterly discredit yourself with that, needless attempt to discredit Mr. Denton.

          • robric

            Rather than trying to mince words, and the meaning of what “is” is. Perhaps it would be best for all concerned to simply utilize a modicum of COMMON SENSE. The Buffoons say that this will make the Moslems hate us, but can this piss them off more than when we are dropping bombs on them from drones? Many Moslems are of the belief that is someone is not Moslem, they are infidels and must be either converted or killed. I would strongly recommend having a dozen or so Jihadist Moslems having lunch with the members of the 9th Circuit. The surviving “Judges”, if any, may want to reconstrue their brilliant conclusions. One country, of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers!

  • No Comment

    Here’s the key thing in my view:
    The statute reads: “Whenever the President finds that the entry….”
    “finds” has a meaning. It is not the same as ‘thinks’ or ‘has a hunch that’, or “promised in a campaign speech that the would”. No, finds would seem to indicate that a finding has been made. Finding has a specific meaning referring to the completion of an inquiry and arrival at a fact-based conclusion grounded on that inquiry.

    This was not done. There is no finding therefore 8/1152/f cannot apply.

    • I hope English is not your native language.

  • No Comment

    Thank you for the CATO link. I disagree often with their theory on economics and morality, but they typically have their facts straight, even when I don’t like where they lead.
    In this case, a well written analysis that clarifies a number of points I’d been trying to understand.

  • Ignacio Cabero

    And what about 8 US Code § 1152

    • Read down below. Already addressed. Sigh.

  • robric

    You cannot invoke logic and common sense to the brainwashed anarchist bastards who think they have the right to impede freedom of movement and destroy property of others. The only way to stop these pukes is with force, lethal and otherwise. Rubber bullets, tear gas and some really mean Dobermans would dissipate any and all “peaceful protests” very quickly! ENOUGH with this bullshit!

%d bloggers like this: