SCOTUS Drops Hawaii’s Challenge to Trump’s Extreme Vetting EO.

Tags

executive Order, extreme vetting, Fourth Circuit, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, President Donald Trump, SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States just hours ago dismissed Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s extreme vetting executive order remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for dismissal as the case is now moot due to the expiration of the 120-day pause which ends today.

Washington Times by Stephen Dinan and Andrea Noble

…The justices acted on the same day that the 120 period expired. “Because those provisions of the Order have ‘expired by [their] own terms,’ the appeal no longer presents a ‘live case or controversy,’” the justices said. The order comes as the Trump administration is expected to announce an updated policy on refugee vetting and admissions later Tuesday. President Trump has already slashed the overall refugee target from 110,000 people in 2017 to 45,000 in 2018. But as the administration works improve its vetting procedures for visitors and would be immigrants to the U.S., it continues to be embroiled in court battles over the legality of its plan to curtail admissions to the U.S. from countries where there are concerns about terrorism and vetting procedures to confirm the identities of travelers[…]

Continue Reading

Last month, POTUS issued a third travel ban that included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The usual judicial activists in Hawaii and Maryland have blocked the ban from going into effect with the exception of North Korea and Venezuela.

You can view the Supreme Court’s order below or here in pdf format.

See also: Justices strike second travel-ban case from docket.

 

Cross-posted on Wow! Magazine and Grumpy Opinions.

SCOTUS Reinstates Key Parts of President’s Travel Ban EO

Tags

Donald Trump, extreme vetting, Supreme Court Ruling, Travel Ban

UPDATE: The President tweeted the following just moments ago.

Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017

ORIGINAL POST:
Last week was a bad week for Progressives and it seems that this week may be more of the same. Progressives, especially the hens on The View are freaking out.

Fox News

In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump’s proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments as early as this fall.

The court’s decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration — the president’s order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a “travel ban….”

Continue Reading

President Trump issued the following statement.

 

As reported by SCOTUSBlog (excerpt):

Justices agree to weigh in on travel ban, allow parts of it to go into effect

…The announcement came in a brief, unsigned opinion issued by the justices when they took the bench this morning to release opinions in cases argued on the merits earlier this term. The court’s opinion focused primarily on the government’s request to reinstate the ban while the cases are before the Supreme Court. Emphasizing that the purpose of temporary relief like this is “to balance the equities as the litigation moves forward,” the court made clear that it had the authority to “tailor” its ruling so that it applied to some, but not all, of those affected.

That is precisely what it did. The lower courts had considered the hardships that the ban would create for the named plaintiffs in the case: two men with family members who want to come to the United States from the affected countries; and the state of Hawaii, whose state university had admitted students from those countries. But, the court explained today, the lower courts’ orders barring enforcement of the ban “reach much further than that,” because they also apply to people living overseas “who have no connection to the United States at all.” When those people are unable to come to the United States, the court reasoned, their constitutional rights are not violated – because they have no right to come to the United States – and their exclusion from the country does not harm anyone in the United States.

The justices therefore upheld the lower courts’ orders blocking enforcement of the ban with regard to the named plaintiffs and others like them – people who “have a credible claim” of a genuine relationship with someone or an institution in the United States. When that relationship is with an individual, the court made clear, it must be a close family member. And when the relationship is with an institution, the relationship must also be a genuine one, rather than one created just to get around the travel ban.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate opinion, which was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. They would have allowed the government to reinstate the ban for all travelers from the six affected countries, regardless of any personal connection that those travelers might have with the United States. Thomas complained that today’s order could prove “unworkable,” requiring government officials to try to figure out whether would-be travelers have enough of an connection to the United States to come here, and could “invite a flood of litigation.”

The court combined the two cases for oral argument, which will take place in October of this year…

SCOTUSBlog licensed under (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US)

Seattle Council Appropriates $1.3M in Legal Aid Funding for Illegal Aliens

Tags

deportation, extreme vetting, Illegal alien, legal defense, Progressives

Source: ICE (Facebook)

On Monday, the Seattle City Council passed CB 118946. The legislation that provides $1 million creates a legal defense fund for illegal aliens to fight the deportation process.

*”indigent Seattle residents” meaning illegal aliens.

“…The ordinance, funds civil legal representation and guidance and referral services for legal representation, for indigent individuals living or working in Seattle, for issues related to their immigration status.”

It doesn’t end there. The Metropolitan King County Council creating a good crisis (Enactment 18499) approved $750,000 for illegal immigrant and refugee programs, $350,000 of which covers legal defense for illegals because after all, it’s President Trump’s fault (sarcasm).

(SOURCE)

The Progressive are balking over the fact that illegal aliens have no “legal” right to representation as ruled by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (of all courts, can you believe it?) two months ago.

In other words, illegal aliens are not entitled to American taxpayer dollars to acquire legal defense to fight deportation. Yet, as reported by The Washington Times, taxpayer coffers in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles County, Chicago as well as Seattle are being pilfered to provide legal defense for illegal aliens.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

These funds are a smack in the face to American taxpayers and the President of the United States.

American taxpayers should not be picking up the tab for those who broke the law by jumping the line ahead of legal immigrants when they entered this country.

Bureaucrats backing illegals and fleecing taxpayer coffers on behalf of illegal aliens should be voted out of office.

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States

Tags

Donald Trump, executive Order, extreme vetting, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States

DHS.gov:

Release Date:

March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017 11:30 a.m. EST
Office of Public Affairs
Contact: 202-282-8010

Q1. Who is subject to the suspension of entry under the Executive Order?

Per the Executive Order, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, who are outside the United States and who did not have a valid visa at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 27, 2017, and do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order are not eligible to enter the United States while the temporary suspension remains in effect. Thus any individual who had a valid visa either on January 27, 2017 (prior to 5:00 PM) or holds a valid visa on the effective date of the Executive Order is not barred from seeking entry.

Q2. Will “in-transit” travelers within the scope of the Executive Order be denied entry into the United States and returned to their country of origin?

Those individuals who are traveling on valid visas and arrive at a U.S. port of entry will still be permitted to seek entry into the United States.  All foreign nationals traveling with a visa must continue to satisfy all requirements for entry, including demonstrating that they are admissible.  Additional information on applying for admission to the United States is available on CBP.gov.

Q3. I am a national from one of the six affected countries currently overseas and in possession of a valid visa, but I have no prior travel to the United States. Can I travel to the United States?

Per the Executive Order, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen who have valid visas will not be affected by this Executive Order.  No visas will be revoked solely based on this Executive Order.

Q4. I am presently in the United States in possession of a valid single entry visa but I am a national of one of the six impacted countries.  Can I travel abroad and return to the United States?

Regardless of the Executive Order, your visa is not valid for multiple entries into the Unites States. While the Executive Order does not apply to those within the United States and your travel abroad is not limited, a valid visa or other document permitting you to travel to and seek admission to the United States is still required for any subsequent entry to the United States.

Q5. I am presently in the United States in possession of a valid multiple entry visa but am a national of one of the six affected countries, can I travel abroad and return to the United States?

Yes. Individuals within the United States with valid multiple entry visas on the effective date of the order are eligible for travel to and from the United States, provided the visa remains valid and the traveler is otherwise admissible.  All foreign nationals traveling with a visa must satisfy all admissibility requirements for entry.  Additional information on applying for admission to the United States is available on CBP.gov.

Q6. I am from one of the six countries, currently in the United States in possession of a valid visa and have planned overseas travel.  My visa will expire while I am overseas, can I return to the United States?

Travelers must have a valid visa to travel to the United States, regardless of the Executive Order.  Travelers who do not have a valid visa due to its expiration while abroad must obtain a new valid visa prior to returning to the United States.

Q7. Will the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) be revoking the visas of persons ineligible to travel under the revised Executive Order?

Visas will not be revoked solely as a result of the Executive Order.  The Department of State has broad authority under Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to revoke visas.

Q8. What is the process for overseas travelers affected by the Executive Order to request a waiver?

Waivers for overseas travelers without a valid U.S. visa will be adjudicated by the Department of State in conjunction with a visa application.

Q9. How are returning refugees and asylees affected by the Executive Order?

Returning refugees and asylees, i.e., individuals who have already been granted asylum or refugee status in the United States, are explicitly excepted from this Executive Order. As such, they may continue to travel consistent with existing requirements.

Q10. Are first-time arrival refugees with valid /travel documents allowed to travel to the United States?

Yes, but only refugees, regardless of nationality, whose travel was already formally scheduled by the Department of State, are permitted to travel to the United States and seek admission.  The Department of State will have additional information.

Q11. Will unaccompanied minors within the scope of the Executive Order be denied boarding and or denied entry into the United States?

The Executive Order applies to those who do not have valid visas.  Any individuals, including children, who seek entry to the United States must have a valid visa (or other approved travel document) before travel to the United States. The Secretary of State may issue a waiver on a case-by-case basis when in the national interest of the United States. With such a waiver, a visa may be issued.

Q12. Is DHS complying with all court orders?

DHS is complying, and will continue to comply, with all court orders in effect.

Q13. When will the Executive Order be implemented?

The Executive Order is effective at 12:01 A.M., Eastern Standard Time, on March 16, 2017.

Q14. Will the Executive Order impact Trusted Traveler Program membership?

No.  Currently, CBP does not have reciprocal agreements for a Trusted Traveler Program with any of the countries designated in the Executive Order.

Q15. When will CBP issue guidance to both the field and airlines regarding the Executive Order?

CBP will issue guidance and contact stakeholders to ensure timely implementation consistent with the terms of the Executive Order.

Q16. Will first-time arrivals with valid immigrant visas be allowed to travel to the U.S.?

Yes. Individuals holding valid visas on the effective date of the Executive Order or on January 27, 2017 prior to 5:00 PM do not fall within the scope of the Order.

Q17. Does this affect travelers at all ports of entry?

Yes, this Executive Order applies to travelers who are applying for entry into the United States at any port of entry—air, land, or sea—and includes preclearance locations.

Q18. What does granting a waiver to the Executive Order mean? How are waivers applied to individual cases?

Per the Executive Order, the Departments of Homeland Security and State can review individual cases and grant waivers on a case-by-case basis if a foreign national demonstrates that his or her entry into the United States is in the national interest, will not pose a threat to national security, and that denying entry during the suspension period will cause undue hardship.

Q19. Does “from one of the six countries” mean citizen, national, or born in?

The Executive Order applies to both nationals and citizens of the six countries.

Q20. How does the lawsuit/stay affect DHS operations in implementing this Executive Order?

Questions regarding the application of specific federal court orders should be directed to the Department of Justice.

Q21. Will nationals of the six countries with valid green cards (lawful permanent residents of the United States) be allowed to return to the United States?

Per the Executive Order, the suspension of entry does not apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States.

Q22. Can a dual national who holds nationality with one of the six designated countries traveling with a passport from an unrestricted country travel to the United States?

The Executive Order exempts from its scope any dual national of one of the six countries when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a different non-designated country.

Q23. Can a dual national who holds nationality with one of the six designated countries and is currently overseas, apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States?

Please contact the Department of State for information about how the Executive Order applies to visa applicants.

Q24. Are international students, exchange visitors, and their dependents from the six countries (such as F, M, or J visa holders) included in the Executive Order? What kind of guidance is being given to foreign students from these countries legally in the United States?

The Executive Order does not apply to individuals who are within the United States on the effective date of the Order or to those individuals who hold a valid visa. Visas which were provisionally revoked solely as a result of the enforcement of Executive Order 13769 are valid for purposes of administering this Executive Order. Individuals holding valid F, M, or J visas may continue to travel to the United States on those visas if they are otherwise valid.

Please contact the State Department for information about how the Executive Order applies to visa applicants.

Q25. What happens to international students, exchange visitors or their dependents from the six countries, such as F, M or J visa holders if their visa expires while the Executive Order is in place and they have to depart the country?

The Executive Order does not affect F, M, or J visa holders if they currently have a valid visa on the effective date or held a valid visa on January 27, 2017 prior to the issuance of the Executive Order. With that said, travelers must have a valid visa to travel to the United States, regardless of the Executive Order.  Travelers whose visa expires after the effective date of the Executive Order must obtain a new, valid visa to return to the United States.

Q26. Can U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) continue refugee interviews?

The Departments of Homeland Security and State will conduct interviews as appropriate and consistent with the Executive Order. However, the Executive Order suspends decisions on applications for refugee status, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine, on a case-by-case basis, that the entry of an individual as a refugee is in the national interest and would not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.

Q27. Can the exception for refugee admission be used for Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (Form I-730) cases where a family member is requesting a beneficiary follow to join?

No. Individuals who already have valid visas or travel documents that permit them to travel to the United States are exempt from the Executive Order. To the extent that an individual does not yet have such documents, please contact the Department of State.

Q28. Does the Executive Order apply to those currently being adjudicated for naturalization or adjustment of status?

USCIS will continue to adjudicate Applications for Naturalization (Form N-400) and Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) and grant citizenship consistent with existing practices.

Q29. Will landed immigrants of Canada affected by the Executive Order be eligible for entry to the United States?

Landed immigrants of Canada who hold passports from one of the six countries are eligible to apply for a visa, and coordinate a waiver, at a location within Canada.

Q30. Has CBP issued clear guidance to CBP officers at ports of entry regarding the Executive Order?

CBP has and will continue to issue any needed guidance to the field with respect to this Executive Order.

Q31. What coordination is being done between CBP and the carriers?

CBP has been and will remain in continuous communication with the airlines through CBP regional carrier liaisons. In addition, CBP will hold executive level calls with airlines in order to provide guidance, answer questions, and address concerns.

Q32. What additional screening will nationals of restricted countries (as well as any visa applications) undergo as a result of the Executive Order?

In making admission and visa eligibility determinations, DHS and DOS will continue to apply all appropriate security vetting procedures.

Q33. Why is a temporary suspension warranted?

The Executive Order signed on March 6, 2017, allows for the proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals.  The Executive Order protects the United States from countries compromised by terrorism and ensures a more rigorous vetting process. Protecting the American people is the highest priority of our Government and this Department.

Congress and the Obama Administration designated these six countries as countries of concern due to the national security risks associated with their instability and the prevalence of terrorist fighters in their territories.The conditions in the six designated countries present a recognized threat, warranting additional scrutiny of their nationals seeking to travel to and enter the United States.  In order to ensure that the U.S. Government can conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the national security risks, the Executive Order imposes a 90-day suspension on entry to the United States of nationals of those countries.

Based on commitments from the Government of Iraq, the suspension of entry in this Executive Order will not apply to nationals of Iraq. Iraq has taken steps to increase their cooperation with the United States in the vetting of Iraqi nationals and as such it was determined that a temporary suspension is not warranted.

DHS will faithfully execute the immigration laws and the President’s Executive Order, and will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism.

Q34. Why is a suspension of the refugee program warranted?

Some of those who have entered the United States as refugees have also proved to be threats to our national security.  For example, in October 2014, an individual admitted to the United States as a refugee from Somalia, and who later became a naturalized U.S. citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in connection with a plot to set off a bomb at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported that approximately 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations.

Q35. How were the six countries designated in the Executive Order selected?

The six countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, had already been identified as presenting concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States.Specifically, the suspension applies to countries referred to in, or designated under—except Iraq—section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12).In that provision Congress restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program by dual nationals of, and aliens recently present in, (A) Syria and Iraq, (B) any country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria, and Sudan), and (C) any other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.In 2016, the former Secretary of Homeland Security designated Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as additional countries of concern regarding aliens recently present in those countries.

For the purposes of this Executive Order, although Iraq has been previously identified, based on commitments from the Government of Iraq, the suspension of entry in this Executive Order will not apply to nationals of Iraq. However, those who are dual nationals of Iraq and aliens recently present in Iraq continue to have restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program.

On the basis of negotiations that have taken place between the Government of Iraq and the U.S. Department of State in the last month, Iraq will increase cooperation with the U.S. Government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States.As such it was determined that a temporary suspension with respect to nationals of Iraq is not warranted at this time.

Q36. Why was Iraq treated differently in this Executive Order?

The close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically-elected Iraqi government, the strong U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combat ISIS justify different treatment.In particular, those Iraqi government forces that have fought to regain more than half of the territory previously dominated by ISIS have earned special status.In addition, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to provide additional information about its citizens for purposes of our immigration decisions.Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to include Iraq in the temporary suspension applicable to the other six countries, but visa applications and applications for admission to the United States by Iraqi nationals will be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine if they have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations.

Q37. Are Iraqi nationals subject to the Executive Order?  Will they require a waiver to travel to the United States?

This Executive Order does not presently suspend the entry of nationals of Iraq.  However, all travelers must have a valid travel document in order to travel to the United States. Admissibility will be determined by a CBP officer upon arrival at a Port of Entry. Please contact the Department of State for information related to visa eligibility and application.

Source:  DHS.gov.

Forum: What Will Happen With Trump’s Travel Ban And Immigration EO?

Tags

Donald Trump, Executive Order 13769, extreme vetting, Islamic Terrorism, Moratorium, National Security, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Will Happen With  Trump’s Travel Ban And Immigration EO?


Don Surber: One thing I have not done since he entered the race in 2015 is give Donald Trump any advice on what to do. I reserve my bad advice for others politicians. His track record is too good. He has me scratch my head from time to time, but eventually I see his point.

He can either press ahead with the case and make Democrats remain on the side of terrorists, or he can rewrite the executive order (which I gave read and see nothing to rewrite) and close off those seven nations. I thin the former course is the correct course to take because this is a fight worth winning. The cost is minimal. Bad headlines? He thrives off them. I really don’t see a downside.

The 9th circuit over the weekend decided to rehear the case en banc — essentially appeal the case itself. The lawyer blogs I read say this is unusual and means the judges are embarrassed and do not want to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Republicans have long wanted to break up the 9th. There you go.]

JoshuaPundit: Before I get to main course, an aperitif of truth to wash away the foul taste of some common disinformation. First, the implementation of the travel order was not ‘sloppy’ or rushed. Before signing and implementing the EO, the president sent it to the White House Office of Legal Counsel. That office exists for one purpose, to carefully vet any proposed action and advise the president as to its legality and/or any possible legal pitfalls. The president’s executive order was carefully vetted and passed with flying colors before the president signed and released it.

Second, a number of the usual suspects have said with a straight face that no terrorist attacks on Americans  have ever  originated from  natives of the 7 countries in question. That is a deliberate, bald faced  lie. And there’s a lot more where that came from.  Apparently these creeps think the American people are as stupid as they think we are.

Trump’s only mistake was in thinking that his legal authority was so obvious in this matter and the national security considerations so obvious that it would be implemented forthwith, even if a flood of demonstrations ensued. He didn’t count on the judge shopping and subsequent legal challenge that were so obviously planned in advance.

It’s no accident this went down in Washington State, and that has little to do with any moral implications, all the signs and chants aside.Always follow the money. The People’s Republic of Seattle and environs has a great many corporations that depend on a continued supply of comparatively low wage H1B visa holders for companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks. Heaven forbid they should employ Americans and pay a decent wage! So much for these companies’ egalitarian,’liberal’ principles, hmmm? According to the language of the lawsuit that was filed, “Many of those immigrant workers are from Muslim-majority countries.”

Other institutions mentioned in the lawsuit are universities in the area who claimed that the order”caused immediate harm to Washington’s public universities, which are state agencies.”

When you do some checking, you find that foreign students are a major cash cow for Washington’s universities, because they pay full tuition. Only Washington DC, Massachusetts, New York and Delaware have a higher percentage of foreign students. Hey, who cares if Mahmoud from Iran is actually a spy, or wants to plant a bomb in an airport terminal at Sea-Tac? Gotta make a buck, especially if we can look virtuous and thwart Trump-Hitler while we’re doing it. Another source of income comes from the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to various organizations via the Refugee Resettlement program for resettling ‘refugees’ in unsuspecting communities across the heartland. There have already been a number of crimes and incidents stemming from this practice in parts of the country where this sort of thing used to be virtually unknown.

So a lot of the uproar is simply about money.

Will the Travel Ban and Immigration EO be implemented? Well, eventually, but it will probably take the Supreme Court to do it, the fact that there’s absolutely no legal basis not to. The 9th circuit has been reversed more times than any other district court, so what’s one more?

A lesson I hope The Donald takes from this is that these swine will do anything they can to slow walk and impede whatever he does, no matter what it is or how beneficial and necessary for the country it is.Those are unimportant details for the Left.

Stately McDaniel Manor:
I’ve been amused to watch the media, assorted pundits, and virtually all leftists screaming in hysterical agony over everything President Trump does, or is said–falsely–to have done, or is said–falsely–to be planning to do. I am particularly amused, however, at the talking heads that solemnly intone Mr. Trump’s immigration order, which has been abused by the 9th Circuit, commonly known as the 9th Circus for its propensity to make up the law as it goes along, is “sucking all the air out of the room.” Old Washington hands may be breathless over this single issue, but Mr. Trump–and the American people–are not.

As I’ve recently written, https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/split-the-ninth/ and apparently can’t write often enough, Mr. Trump is actually used to work. He works hard, each and every day, just like working Americans that pay taxes and keep our economy afloat. He works long hours, just like the aforementioned Americans, and he can work on more than one thing at a time. Look in the dictionary under “multitasker,” and one will find a photo of Mr. Trump, and millions upon millions of other competent, non-politician and pundit Americans.

President Trump and those that work for him are more than capable of dealing with the 9th Circus, and of simultaneously handling innumerable other tasks. This is why the federal government employees some 3 million people, so they can handle a great many tasks at once. I know they’re out of practice, and this will take some adjustment after eight years of a President who only occasionally did a bit of work, and that, grudgingly, but it’s the new normal. The new Sheriff has already arrived, shot most of the bad guys, and kissed the pretty saloon owner.

Now, after that little bit of a multitasking example, let’s continue to this week’s topic.

I have, upon occasion, found myself in agreement with Alan Dershowitz. We have agreed on the Trayvon Martin case, the Freddie Gray case, and a variety of other legal issues, and we agree on what Mr. Trump should do with this immigration executive order: simply write a new, leaner and meaner executive order addressing every issue raised by the lunatics of the 9th Circuit. Clean it up, make it absolutely unassailable by any sane jurist. Simultaneously, pursue the other executive order in the courts, or perhaps, just long enough to make it moot.

Various leftist attorney’s general will file suit against the new order, but the ultimate goal will be the Supreme Court, and the proper record must be built for that Court. It is even possible the four progressives might vote to uphold the Constitution in this case–the Constitution and federal law are that clear–though one should never count on that sort of rationality.

We must now expect unrelenting lawfare. Virtually everything Mr. Trump does will be met with lawsuits by progressives. In this case, the Constitution is crystal clear, as is federal law: the President of the United States has exclusive power–government has powers, people have rights–to regulate immigration. He can do what he did: stop immigration from any country dead in its tracks. Foreign nationals have no rights under the Constitution, and under federal law, states have no standing to sue in this matter. Federal courts have no legitimate role.

So the 9th Circuit did what it always does: it ignored the Constitution and the law and made it up.

This is a crisis foreseen by those Americans that voted for Donald Trump. The inevitability that federal courts, packed with progressives rather than honest men and women willing to honor their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution and uphold the law, would ignore their oaths, and blatantly establish rule by federal judge, daring us to do something about it. With a progressive majority on the Supreme Court, eventually, the only means of restoring the Constitution would be violence, and no sane person wants it to come to that.

It’s time for Congress, working with Mr. Trump, to write new laws, carefully and narrowly written laws, that remove–leaving no wiggle room–the ability of the states, private parties, and others to claim standing to sue the President in matters of national security and immigration. To do otherwise is to join Democrats in national suicide.

It’s also time for Attorney General Sessions to drain the swamp that is the Department of Justice. Actually demanding its employees work on the side of America and the rule of law for a change would be novel indeed. Putting in the A-Team, or bringing in outside pros not twisted by progressive ideology, to argue the government’s cases would help too.

What’s that you say? Even if the weasels in Congress do that, the courts will just ignore the law, just as they ignore any law they don’t like now? Perhaps, but we have to start somewhere, and in the meantime, Mr. Trump will be continuing to work, each and every day, on a multitude of important issues. That’s why Democrats are slow-walking his cabinet secretaries. When they’re in office, Mr. Trump will pick up a pace that’s already leaving progressives breathless.

It can’t come soon enough, and it’s about time.

The Glittering Eye :One way or another President Trump’s executive order suspending travel from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa will be upheld. Either the Ninth Circuit en banc will uphold it (30% confidence) or the Supreme Court will uphold it (75% confidence).

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : Perhaps the 9th circuit’s decision will be a lesson learned and cause the Trump Administration not to be so quick to issue executive orders until every detail, legality, and consequence of such order is explored. It looked and was sloppy in its crafting and execution. President Trump should understand how everything he does is going to be scrutinized by the political left and the progressive media. He cannot make amateurish mistakes. President Trump should let this go and issue a new executive order. He also needs to push the Senate for the speedy confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court justice. We need a conservative constitutionalist to replace Justice Scalia in order to advance our conservative agenda.

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.

Former U S Marine’s Facebook Post Re Iraq, Trump EO Goes Viral

Tags

Donald Trump, Executive Order 13769, extreme vetting, Islamic Terrorism, Moratorium, National Security, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

“They can tell you what they want you to hear and they can keep that up for many, many years…And then, eventually when it’s time, they’ll do what they believe is right…If that is to hurt an American – or hurt many of us at one time – they’re going to do it.” Steven Gern, former U.S. Marine, private security contractor.

Former U.S. Marine, Steven Gern returned to the United States last week after a video the private security contractor posted to his Facebook page while in Iraq went viral.

Days after President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), Gern made a short video sharing the discussions he had with Iraqis incensed by the EO.

The video went viral racking up 44 million views after which Gern was informed by his private security contractor that his life was in danger and for his safety, he had to return to America.

Gern discussed the video and the discussion with local Iraqis on Fox News, Sean Hannity Friday night.

Fox News Insider

Steven Gern’s video, which was posted from Iraq and has been viewed more than 44 million times, came just a few days after President Trump’s executive order triggered massive protests at U.S. airports.

The order temporarily banned travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Gern relayed a short message about conversations he had about the controversial order with Iraqis. He said he asked them what would happen if he, an American, “went out in town.”

“[I asked] would I be welcome? And they instantly said, ‘Absolutely not. You would not be welcome,'” Gern recalled[…]

Continue Reading

Below is Gern’s video originally posted to his Facebook page which pretty much vindicates our President.

Cross-posted on Grumpy Opinions.