Posts

House passes bill repealing all of Trump’s travel bans and preventing future presidents from enacting similar bans

This is insane: “the No Ban Act would repeal all of Trump’s travel bans and would prevent future presidents from enacting similar broad bans based on national origin.”

So future Presidents would not even be able to ban people entering the United States from a country with which the U.S. was at war.

Note also that this bill is an attempt to end the “Muslim ban,” which does not exist. What does exist is a ban on immigration from several countries, most but by no means all of which are Muslim, that cannot or will not provide accurate information about prospective immigrants. The list of countries was devised during the Obama administration, while Biden was Vice President. Most Muslim countries have no such restrictions. To characterize this, as the hopelessly compromised Judy Chu does here, as “driven by prejudice,” is irrational and dangerous, as it casts a legitimate national security measure as hateful, a line of argumentation that would ultimately make it impossible for the United States to do anything to defend itself at all.

The suicidal, anti-American Left becomes more open about its priorities and intentions by the day.

“Trump accuses Democrats of going ‘Stone Cold Left — Venezuela on steroids!,’” by Marisa Schultz, Fox News, July 25, 2020:

President Trump Saturday lashed out at House Democrats who this week passed a repeal of his travel ban, claiming the party has gone “Stone Cold Left.”

In a morning tweet, Trump said his travel ban that initially targeted predominantly Muslim-majority countries and was expanded after court challenges was a “big win” and “successfully keeps very bad and dangerous people out of our great country.”

“The Dems have gone Stone Cold Left — Venezuela on steroids!” Trump tweeted.

The House Wednesday passed “The No Ban Act” on a mainly party-line vote of 233-183. Two Republicans — Reps. Will Hurd of Texas and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — joined with Democrats.

The legislation was hailed as a long-awaited victory for Muslim Americans and civil rights groups who had been protesting Trump’s travel ban since 2017.

But the victory was expected to be short-lived. The Senate has no plans to take it up, and Trump would surely veto the check on his authority. Trump said Saturday the legislation “hopefully, will be DEAD in the Senate!”…

The No Ban Act would repeal all of Trump’s travel bans and would prevent future presidents from enacting similar broad bans based on national origin….

“This ban never had anything to do with national security; it was always driven by prejudice,” said bill sponsor Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif….

“This is not a Muslim ban,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. “This is a legitimate travel restriction implemented for the safety of this nation.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Azerbaijanis scream “jihad” in front of Armenian Embassy in Washington, DC, Azerbaijanis attack Armenians in Moscow

Arizona: Muslima used coronavirus relief check to send money to al-Qaeda to “kill Americans”

Minnesota: Muslim migrant sends drone parts to Hizballah

Hamas Women’s Movement chief: ‘Our conflict with the Zionist enemy is a matter of faith, not of borders’

Head of UK’s Largest Muslim Charity Called Jews “Grandchildren of Monkeys and Pigs”

ISIS in India: “Keep yourselves armed at all times to never miss a chance to kill as many Kaffirs as you can”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All right reserved.

Pelosi Attacks Trump For Protecting American Lives

Does expansion of entry restriction for aliens strengthen or weaken national security?


On January 31, 2020 the Department of Justice issued a press release, Fugitive Wanted by Iraq for Murder of Iraqi Police Officers Arrested in Arizona began with this passage:

A Phoenix-area resident, who is alleged to have been the leader of a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Fallujah, Iraq, appeared today before a federal magistrate judge in Phoenix, Arizona in connection with proceedings to extradite him to the Republic of Iraq.  He is wanted to stand trial in Iraq for two charges of premeditated murder committed in 2006 in Al-Fallujah.

The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey for the District of Arizona.

An Iraqi judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, 42, on murder charges.  The Government of Iraq subsequently requested Ahmed’s extradition from the United States.  In accordance with its treaty obligations to Iraq, the United States filed a complaint in Phoenix seeking a warrant for Ahmed’s arrest based on the extradition request.  U.S. Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the warrant on January 29, 2020, and Ahmed was arrested the following day.

Subsequent news reports have indicated that Al-Nouri entered the United States as a refugee some ten years ago, was recently married and has been operating a driving school in Arizona.

That an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist and Iraqi fugitive, wanted for murder would enter the United States gives rise a long list of questions that includes the obvious and disconcerting question- was he here to participate in or support a terror attack?

That Al-Nouri was able to enter the United States as a refugee calls into focus the apparent failure of the vetting process that enabled him to legally enter the United States, provided the allegations made by the Iraqi government about him are true.

In point of fact, for decades, a long list of other terrorists were able to game the vetting process and the immigration benefits program to enter the U.S. and embed themselves in preparation for a deadly terror attack.

This brings us the fact that on the very same day that the DOJ announced the arrest of a suspected terrorists and international fugitive by the FBI, ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, on January 31st, perhaps coincidentally, The Hill reported, Trump administration restricts travel from Nigeria and five other countries.  Here is an excerpt from that report:

The government will curb the ability of citizens of Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania to get certain immigration visas, according to officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department, but it is not a blanket travel ban.”Because we have higher confidence that these six countries will be able to make improvements in their system in a reasonable period of time, we did not feel it would be proportionate to impose restrictions on all immigrant and non-immigration visas,” a DHS official said.

The official cited national security concerns as the reason for the restrictions, saying the governments of the six countries do not meet requirements for information-sharing and passport security.

President Trump was expected to sign a proclamation approving the restrictions on Friday afternoon, and it will go into effect on Feb. 22.

The actions of President Trump to tighten up the vetting process for alines entering the United States are, in reality, consistent with standing law and with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

However, just hours after The Hill reported on the Trump administration’s expansion of the entry restriction for citizens of certain countries, The Hill reported, Pelosi: Trump’s expanded travel ban is ‘outrageous, un-American’ and threatens ‘rule of law’ and began this way:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Trump’s expanded travel ban after he included six other countries to the list of those that will face increased travel restrictions.

“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement.

In reality the so-called “travel ban” is actually an “entry restriction” and, far from being illegal is actually one of many authorities provide to the President of the United States to protect national security and public safety.  Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi falsely and recklessly claimed that somehow the President’s decision to use standing law to control the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a national security threat would do the precise opposite and supposedly threaten national security and the rule of law.

As I have noted in previous articles and testimony, under one of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Specifically 8 U.S. Code § 1182: (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President the President has wide-ranging authority to suspend the entry of any and/or all aliens if he determines that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  The term “detrimental to the interests of the United States” is as low a bar as could be imagined.

Here is that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

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.

This then raises the obvious and unavoidable questions that the mainstream media would never ask Ms Pelosi, how could she claim that is it illegal for the President of the United States to impose a restriction on the entry of aliens, when long-standing federal law provides that very authority to the President?

How does President Trump’s decision to prevent the entry of aliens who might pose a threat to national security threaten national security?

In point of fact, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this unambiguous paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

This is hardly the first time, and I suspect will not be the last time, that Pelosi and her fellow immigration anarchists will attack the President and immigration law enforcement personnel who are dedicated to protecting national security and the lives of innocent Americans.

Indeed, she has frequently alleged that the President has acted “Unconstitutionally” when he insists on securing our nation’s borders against the illegal entry of aliens and/or enforcing our immigration laws.

In anticipation of that bogus claim Ms Pelosi and her fellow radicals should read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things!

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Democrats call Trump ‘racist’ again as he adds six new countries to ‘outrageous, un-American’ travel ban

The Trump administration contends that the bans are for security reasons, that the countries in question cannot or will not provide adequate information about the people wanting to come in. This is entirely reasonable, but for the Left, concern for national security is “racist” and must be done away with.

“Democrats attack Trump as racist after he expands travel ban to six new countries,” by Victor Rantala, BizPacReview, February 2, 2020:

Democrats criticized the White House announcement that the United States will add six more countries to a controversial travel ban that originally was called a “Muslim ban” by the left, and that Joe Biden on Saturday called a new “African Ban.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the charge in opposition to the travel ban expansion, describing it as “discrimination disguised as policy.”

“The Trump administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law,” her statement reads. “The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy.”

To no one’s surprise, she added that Democrats will do all in their power to resist the president. “In the Congress and in the Courts, House Democrats will continue to oppose the Administration’s dangerous anti-immigrant agenda. In the coming weeks, the House Judiciary Committee will mark-up and bring to the Floor the NO BAN Act to prohibit religious discrimination in our immigration system and limit the President’s ability to impose such biased and bigoted restrictions.”

On Friday, Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf told reporters that after a “systematic review” of all countries, six nations were added to the travel ban list: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.

Prior to this latest expansion, restrictions on immigrant and non-immigrant visas were in place for seven countries, to include Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

After enduring multiple court challenges to the original travel ban, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 2018.

According to Wolf, the additional six nations have lighter restrictions than the original seven. “These countries, for the most part, want to be helpful, want to do the right thing, have relationships with the U.S. and are in some cases improving relations, but for a variety of different reasons failed to meet those minimum requirements that we laid out,” he said. “And really the only way to mitigate the risk is to impose these travel restrictions.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

End the Hoax: There Are No Palestinians

Iran’s new Quds Force top dog: “The Islamic Republic is prepared to defeat” Trump’s peace plan

UK: Muslim who stabbed two while screaming “Allahu akbar” wanted his girlfriend to behead her parents

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

TAKE ACTION: Email the 9th Circuit Court supporting President Trump’s travel ban

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on President Trump’s revised travel ban from early March.  The federal appeals court held a hearing on May 15, 2017 at 12:30 p.m. ET in Seattle to hear the case filed by the State of Hawaii. The court reviewed the decision issued by Hawaii U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson regarding the ban’s enforcement.

The three judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals includes Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins.  All three judges were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

US District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued an order that halted enforcement of the travel ban on the erroneous basis that it likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it allegedly discriminates against Muslims.

The ACLU lawyer in the Maryland travel ban case admitted that the executive order would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it.   Fourth US Circuit Court Judge Paul V. Niemeyer questioned the plaintiffs’ attorney, Omar Jadwat, in the Maryland case about his motive for opposing the ban.  Judge Niemeyer asked “If some other candidate had won the election and issued this order, I gather you would have no problem with that.”  Then Judge Niemeyer stated and asked Jadwat “We have an order on its face. We can read this order and we have no antecedent statements by a candidate about this order. We have a candidate who won the presidency — some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency — and then chose to issue this particular order with whatever counsel he took. … He issued this executive order. Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored?”  Jadwat had already twice refused to answer the question, but when the judge offered such a comprehensive hypothetical, he admitted: “Yes, your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional.”

Judge Watson’s order:

  • Failed to recognize the president’s statutory authority to execute the ban pursuant to Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) of Title 8.
  • Failed to consider the travel ban addressed only six of forty-nine (12%) Muslim majority countries.  Pew Research reported on January 31, 2017 there are forty-nine Muslim majority countries.
  • Ignored the fact that the travel ban applied equally to all nationalities and religions from the six designated countries.
  • Failed to recognize that for the past 30 years, every President has invoked that power to protect the Nation by suspending entry of categories of aliens.
  • Is unprecedented in that it restrains an executive order by the President of the United States because of statements that he made as a private citizen before he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
  • Strongly appears to place a priority on politics instead of justice.

Judge Watson’s order perpetuates a dangerous myth that President Trump’s travel ban is a “Muslim Ban.”  What other federal laws will be unenforceable against Muslims if the U.S. Courts erroneously rule that President Trump and his administration are biased against Muslims?

Nearly 25,000 people sent emails in 2014 and 2015 through Floridafamily.org that urged the judges serving on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a three judge panel decision that banned the Youtube.com video titled Innocence of Muslims, a critique of Mohammad.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins to make national security a priority over politics and public safety a priority over political correctness in the case of Hawaii v Trump.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email to urge the 9th Circuit Court judges to make national security a priority over politics and public safety a priority over political correctness in the case of Hawaii v Trump.

IMMIGRATION: President Trump’s Revised EO is Constitutional, Legal, and Common Sense

President Trump has signed a revised Executive Order (EO) on immigration and refugee resettlement. Democrats are already calling it a “Muslim ban.” A question that Democrats should ask themselves: What if former President Clinton had banned the 9/11/2001 hijackers from entering the United States, would we be better off today?

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly released the following statement about the EO:

“The Executive Order signed today by President Trump will make America safer, and address long-overdue concerns about the security of our immigration system. We must undertake a rigorous review of our visa and refugee vetting programs to increase our confidence in the entry decisions we make for visitors and immigrants to the United States. We cannot risk the prospect of malevolent actors using our immigration system to take American lives.

The Executive Order signed today is prospective in nature—applying only to foreign nationals outside of the United States who do not have a valid visa. It is important to note that nothing in this executive order affects current lawful permanent residents or persons with current authorization to enter our country. If you have a current valid visa to travel, we welcome you. But unregulated, unvetted travel is not a universal privilege, especially when national security is at stake.

“The Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the White House to create an executive order that addresses our information concerns while protecting the homeland and our citizens.”

Hans von Spakovsky in his The Daily Signal article “Why Trump’s Revised Executive Order Is Constitutional, Legal, and Common Sense” writes:

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order restricting travel from terrorist safe havens is just as constitutional and legal as his original order, despite what some courts such as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said about the original order.

But the revisions he has made, which clarify that the executive order does not apply to any foreigners who already hold visas to enter the U.S., will make it tougher for activist judges to justify any injunction orders they might be inclined to issue against it. Yet there is little doubt that progressive groups will seek such orders.

The executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” confirms what the administration had previously announced, which is that the temporary, 90-day suspension of entry into the U.S. from certain designated countries will not apply to:

  • Lawful permanent residents as well as diplomatic, NATO, and U.N. personnel.
  • Foreign nationals admitted after the effective date of the executive order.
  • Individuals with a visa valid on the date of the executive order.
  • Dual nationals travelling on a passport issued by a non-designated country.
  • Individuals already granted asylum or refugee status before the effective date of the executive order.

This is an important revision because it voids the due process concerns that the 9th Circuit expressed—namely, that individuals who had already received approval to enter or reside in the United States might have that right taken away from them without a review and appeal process.

Read more…

Spakovsky concludes, “This executive order is clearly within the president’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (f), in which Congress clearly delegated to the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. when he believes it would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States’.”

ABOUT HANS VON SPAKOWSKY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: @HvonSpakovsky

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of the Fed Refugee Resettlement Program

Who’s paying for the DACA program? | TheHill

Trump makes key changes to travel ban

Five takeaways from Trump’s new travel ban

Iraq’s lobbyists mobilized after travel ban, documents reveal

Politico: Fight will now focus on 120-day refugee moratorium

No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists