The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

Immigration...

Quote Reply
Immigration...
A federal judge in Hawaii, who was appointed by Barrack Obama, has found Trump's new EO for a temporary ban on immigration for certain countries and certain peoples to be ... illegal? unconstitutional? unfair?

I am not really sure why this is any sort of legitimate concern of federal judges at all, so I am not sure why they believe it is some sort of duty for them to rule on it?

First, a nation has a right to limit immigration and to have a merit-based immigration policy. Other nations do this. Why can't the US?

Second, people who are in the country illegally are subject to our laws concerning their illegal status. Some nations just deport, but some imprison, while a few actually execute illegals.

Third, those who wish to immigrate to the USA, either legally or illegally, have no Constitutional Rights. We do allow for limited rights and considerations, but we don't have to; some other countries certainly don't.

Fourth, the President has the authority to act in this manner whenever it is felt that immigration puts our nation at risk.

So...what is the deal, here?

You know that the bottom line is that the Progressive World View is that there should be NO BORDERS and NO NATION STATES.

That is their view and their desire. It is not the desire of the States in the USA. This has been a fight for decades; is US law supreme in the USA or do we have to capitulate to he desires of the Globalists?

This is not about human rights. This is about a nation's sovereignty.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Immigration... In reply to
Jeanne: Hi.

Fourth, the President has the authority to act in this manner whenever it is felt that immigration puts our nation at risk.

I thought constitutionally the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive are all three supposed to be involved in decisions which affect the rights of the people. The big beef about Obama was his ‘going it alone’ by use of Executive Orders to by pass The Senate and House of Representatives, (which had become deadlocked against him). Surely Trump is using exactly the same mechanism for exactly the same reasons. (Even though he has much more support in the House than Obama ever did.)

Trump needs to understand that he no longer represents only his loyal followers, (less than 50% of those who voted and a smaller % still of the whole population), but every citizen of The USA. He is President of The Nation, not just a party leader pledged to please his followers.

He should seek the backing of The House and The Judiciary after taking legal advice on the necessary action to ensure your nations security, without infringing the rights of US citizens, adversely affecting their livelihoods or riding roughshod over international law.

I think the main objection to the Executive Order from Hawaii’s point of view is the adverse affect it has on tourism, which is Hawaii’s major industry. Being an island out in the Pacific Ocean they tend to look at the immigration problem from a different perspective than would a backwoodsman or a bluegrass hillbilly.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Immigration... In reply to
Hi Chris.

Nope, this call is one for the President alone. It has been used before, most recently by Jimmy Carter, who banned all Muslims from Iran and deported all Iranian Muslim students. That they happened to be all Muslims is a wonder to me...

There has been some nit-picking of the law or statute, but it still stands as one the President can use.

I will look for some material to back this claim up.

Some of the EOs that Obama wrote, he had for years told his followers that he was Constitutionally unable to do. Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional Scholar, but he apparently became one so he would know how to tear it down. That makes sense to me and others; know your enemy so you can destroy them. Obama and his ilk, both in this country and around the world, have acted to lessen America...and you don't do that if you love your country and its supreme law.

All presidents have the option to use EOs, but not all have used them as destructively as Obama did by choosing to go around Congress with what he well knew neither they nor the citizens would approve. Most of them centered on forming Regulatory Committees, who could make laws but were not elected by the people as Congress was. This type of governing has been most detrimental to our country over several decades, but has increased dramatically recently. It is going to be hard and messy to undo the hundreds of thousands of regulations that have cripple the country in every aspect.

You must remember that the States elect our President, not the popular vote directly. That gives Trump a mandate. I don't know why he should comply with any international law. In fact, I think the President is tasked with not complying with international law that is detrimental to the nation.

If a set of foreigners is deemed by the President to be of danger to the nation and its citizens, then he has the power by this law to limit their entry into the country and the power to deport. Certainly, European nations have that power, as well, do they not? Who decides whether non-Eurozone people may come into and live in the UK, France, Germany, etc? Our President has that "quick to action" power when he or she deems it necessary.

Did you know that statistically speaking, Obama deported more people than George Bush when he was president? They counted as deportations all those who were turned away at border crossings.

I don't understand how this temporary ban or the ban on the countries labelled by the Obama Administration as "terrorist or terrorist-enabling" countries impacts detrimentally on US citizens? Unless they are in the practice of illegally hiring known illegals in their businesses?

As for Hawaii... really? They depend that much on Muslims coming from terrorist countries? Maybe they could become a sanctuary state and ONLY rely on Muslims who come from terrorist countries for their economy.

Sounds fishy to me. The federal judge that stayed this new temporary ban and terrorist-nation ban was appointed by Obama, who happened to be visiting Hawaii just a few days ago. He is just touring the islands and nearby areas all by himself...cuz he is just that independent and cool a dude that he doesn't vacation with his family. Oh...that sounded kind of snarky of me. Yes, well, mea culpa.

I see that Wilders lost in the Netherlands...just wait a bit. He gained five votes from last time and the other fellow lost eight from the last time. Let us see what another couple of years does to the opinions of people in the EU.

Wilders has been preaching about Islamist Jihad for a long time and Mark Stein and others have as well. Most of the EU nations seem to be acting to commit national suicide, while "white-washing" the attacks as the result of mental illness and/or drug addiction. Meanwhile, the immigrants spawn fruitfully and Europeans have dropped below replacement levels. Not with the fervor of Japan, but nonetheless, Europeans are rapidly dwindling in the EU, while Islam rises helped along by those whom they would replace.

The USA does not have to join them in this self-destruction. This is what our States voted for; to not commit national suicide.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Immigration... In reply to
This from "The Atheist Conservative" may be of interest to those who are following events in Europe:

http://theatheistconservative.com/2017/03/16/in-the-netherlands-the-patriotic-spring-delayed/
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Immigration... In reply to
Jeanne53: Hi

The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1,Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. The term is mentioned as direction to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and is part of Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 The consequence of failing to comply possibly being removal from office.

The Constitution carries a right and responsibility for Federal Judges to Check legislation which might conflict with the US Constitution. Two have now done so based upon the revised wording of Trump's Executive Order. Perhaps The Presidents team needs to draft their orders more carefully or get advice on what is and what may not be deemed to be 'Constitutional', before issuing EO's.

https://www.theguardian.com/...dge-trump-travel-ban

It would seem, from where I am observing, that constitutional issues are only flagged up by some right leaning factions if they pertain to the term of office of a 'Liberal' Democratic President. (He's no longer President - forget it and move on). Now the boot is on the other foot - 'to hell with the constitution' as long as the 'job gets done', as they see it.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Mar 17, 2017, 9:25 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Immigration... In reply to
Hi Chris.

Too long on the other topic.

The judge said that he stayed the EO based upon what Donald Trump had said during his campaign. The judge "believes" that Trump actually wants to ban all Muslims, but is just inching toward that goal.

This idea of the judiciary branch taking the reins of the executive branch is troubling to many, who may feel this is a "silent coup" in Rush Limbaugh's words.

EOs have been used by presidents forever. This one deals with the President's concern for the safety of the nation and its citizens and is within Trump's rights to issue.

Why would anyone question what is a temporary ban on certified national security dangers? That is the real question. When all is said and done, there is little to see here...little importance, but much ballyhoo from the media and from Trump haters.

Do we not have more truly important issues at stake in the world and in our nation, then a temporary ban and a sensible ban on terrorist nations, as designated by the Obama Administration?

Heck, yes, we do!

This does not conflict with the Constitution. It is an essential part of our supreme law. The sovereignty and safety of our nation by securing our borders and knowing who is within them.

Gotta go.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Immigration... In reply to
Jeanne: Hi.

Under President Truman, in 1952 the 'Youngstown Decision' established a standard for the exercise of executive power. In his concurring opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson described three different situations and three corresponding levels of presidential authority:

The president acts with the most authority when he has the "express or implied" consent of Congress.

The president has uncertain authority in situations where Congress has not imposed its authority -- either by inaction or indifference -- and the president takes advantage of this "zone of twilight" to make an executive decision.

The president acts with the least authority when he issues an executive order that is "incompatible" with the expressed or implied will of Congress. Such an act, wrote Justice Jackson, threatens the "equilibrium established by our Constitutional system".

I would say that Pres. Trump's OE's are hovering around the second point, uncertain authority. That is why his EO's are being questioned.

Is Congress either 'inactive' or 'indifferent' to the terrorist danger? Probably not. Could it swing support behind the OE's that Trumps team have crafted? Probably yes if given the chance. Has it been trusted to so far? No.

So what is wrong with the wording of the EO's? Ask the constitutional lawyers.

Meanwhile it is all predictably good PR for Trump. He stays in the headlines, gets opportunity to harangue the judiciary, builds his personal profile as Savior of the country and winds his supporters into a frenzy, thus ensuring their continued loyalty to him personally.

Very effective policy. A clever cookie indeed.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Mar 17, 2017, 2:41 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Immigration... In reply to
Hi Chris.

From The Hill about the original ban:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

Cited in the article are the sections that make this legal:

<<The EO imposes a 90-day suspension of immigrant and nonimmigrant admission of aliens from countries designated in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which excludes aliens who have been present in a specified country from participating in the Visa Waiver program.>>

and:

<<The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

"(f) 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.">>

Once again, we should evaluate Trump's actions as those of a business deal, wherein the first volley is not the ending game shot. That is the only way I can understand his actions. Throw it all on the table and negotiate to where you want to be; that is, be able to give them something while still getting exactly what you want at the time. It is what the Progressives have been doing for ages.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."