They redefined life; we did nothing. They redefined marriage and then human sexuality; we remained silent. Now the courts are redefining national borders. Will this finally be the last straw?
It’s not even worth delving into the details of the temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii. The notion of granting an affirmative right to immigrate for people who never stepped foot on our shores, and a First Amendment religious freedom right for foreigners to immigrate (but, of course, not for American Christian business owners) is the most radical manifestation of judicial tyranny imaginable.
We have already thoroughly covered the legal aspects of the immigration order [see links at bottom]. Trump had just as much power to enact the first order as he did this order, but the implications of Wednesday’s court ruling are even more dangerous.
What Judge Derrick Watson and the courts today are saying is that even Congress can’t limit any immigration of their chosen classes, even when, in the case of refugees, the moratorium applies to every country in the world.
Per the judiciary, all 7.2 billion people in the world have a potential right to immigrate, unless we demonstrate a reason they should not be admitted that is sufficient to a judge’s liking. The first executive order denying entry to existing visa holders was already covered by at least seven statutes. This new moratorium applied only to future immigrants, and refugees are covered by the entire premise of presidential power.
The New York Times is spreading their lies about Donald J. Trump again, and Deneen Borelli is calling them out! >> The truth about Trump's executive order on immigration.
Posted by Conservative Review on Tuesday, January 31, 2017
For decades upon decades, the courts have been clear that the right to exclude is plenary and entirely the political branches’ prerogative. The courts have no power to second guess any decision — and that is settled law. Moreover, the right to exclude is inherent in presidential power, in addition to the delegated power accorded to the commander in chief by statute:
When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.
Thus, the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may, in turn, delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General. The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it 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 v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542-543 (1950)]
What Judge Derrick Watson and the courts today are saying is that even Congress can’t limit any immigration of their chosen classes, even when, in the case of refugees, the moratorium applies to every country in the world. They are saying that even Congress can’t protect our sovereignty and that merely not admitting record numbers of refugees and immigrants from war-torn Islamic areas, during the worst era of homegrown terror, violates the global freedom of religion!
We will not have a country left if we don’t declare war back on the courts.
To that end, instead of fighting against conservatives to preserve Obamacare, Trump should work with conservatives on immigration and judicial reform, and demand the following from congressional leaders:
- Immediately pass a concurrent resolution disapproving the court’s decision and affirming the plenary power of the political branches over immigration.
- Include the president’s immigration order in the April budget bill in the form of a defunding rider. Congress should defund the issuance of visas from those seven countries (yes, add Iraq back in) and defund refugee resettlement for the remainder of the fiscal year.
- Finally exercise Article III Sec. 2 powers to regulate and except the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, at least beginning with the lower courts. The courts must be stripped of the power to adjudicate any case forcing the entry of a foreign national into the country against the will of the other branches. Not that the courts had this power to begin with ... (Trump might also want to require all members of his team to read “Stolen Sovereignty,” from yours truly!)
- Immediately draw up articles of impeachment against Judges Watkins, James Robart, and any other judge that blatantly violates the rules of standing to inject their personal agenda into public policy, at the expense of national sovereignty.
- Eliminate the ability of lower courts to issue injunctions or restraining orders on major public policy issues outside of their respective jurisdictions.
- Strip the Ninth Circuit down to a geographic jurisdiction covering a small part of California and replace the remainder of the area currently covered by the Ninth Circuit with a new 12th Circuit. This should serve as a shot across the bow to the many other radical circuits that are one step behind the insanity of the Ninth.
Ultimately, together with the backing of Congress, Trump should use this travel ban halt as the impetus to denude the courts of their ill-gotten power. This is different from ignoring any other unconstitutional court decision; there is no legitimate case or controversy that could have gotten standing before the court. How can a court put an injunction on the lack of issuance of visas to prospective foreign nationals who never entered the country?
Even for those already issued visas, the executive branch has the full authority to deny entry. As noted before, U.S. code makes it clear that the issuance of a visa does not “entitle any alien” to be “admitted [into] the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law.” This is written on the actual visa itself!
And the law explicitly strips the courts of authority to litigate a revocation. How can the other two branches accede to this display of civil disobedience concerning the most settled area of law, one which secures our sovereignty and security in this perilous time?
The courts are now setting a precedent to erase our national borders. They are granting standing to states or individuals to demand that the federal government allow in any of their relatives to visit them or to immigrate. European-style immigration is now mandated by the courts.
If this travesty is not immediately confronted, elections will no longer serve as a bulwark against America following in the suicidal footsteps of Europe.
- The appalling hypocrisy, ignorance of courts on immigration and states' rights
- The full case for why courts have no jurisdiction over Trump's immigration order
- Impeach Judge James Robart for violating sovereignty and Constitution
- How to tell the difference between Trump and Obama's refugee EOs? Trump actually follows the law
- Rogue judges undermine our sovereignty. Here's how Congress can stop them.:
- These 16 quotes prove America can exclude or deport any immigrant … for any reason
- These 73 sitting Democrats voted to ban visas from some Muslim countries. That law still exists.
- Just how radical was the Ninth Circuit’s nullification of law?
- 7 statutes that CLEARLY support Trump’s immigration executive order