Say, Is Trump’s Executive Order Temporarily Blocking People From Seven Nations Legal?

The Washington Post gives it a try in determining whether the order is legal and Constitutional, pairing David B. Rivkin Jr., who practices appellate and constitutional law in the District and served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush against Karen Tumlin, who is the legal director for the National Immigration Law Center and the NILC Immigrant Justice Fund. Tumlin is the liberal in the discussion, and really highlights the idiocy of the Democrats in their thoughts

Is President Trump’s executive order constitutional?

Karen Tumlin: Hi, James and David, looking forward to having this discussion with you both on this important topic. (James Downie is the reporter/moderator)

The executive order has several legal problems. I would highlight two of the most serious. First, ours is a nation that was founded on the premise that individuals should be free from religious discrimination by the government. That principle is enshrined in our Constitution and prohibits the federal government from discriminating against or favoring any religious group. This executive order does both. By banning the entry of individuals with valid visas from seven majority-Muslim countries, there is no question that the executive order singles out Muslims for disfavored treatment. Equally questionable is the preference given to minority religions under the executive order for refugees. Practically, this favors the admission of Christians.

Second, the executive order also violates the bedrock legal principle of equal protection under our laws. That constitutional guarantee means that the federal government cannot discriminate against individuals based on what they believe (their religion) or where they were born, without adequate rationale.

Tumlin starts off on pure fallacy: the premise of being free from religious discrimination applies to citizens of this country, and those we have allowed in legally. It does not apply to foreign citizens in foreign nations. Of course, the actual language of the First Amendment isn’t about discrimination: it is about Congress creating a national religion embedded within the government, along with stopping the free practice of religion. I wonder if Tumlin had as much of a problem when Team Obama was discriminating against Christian beliefs with orders such as the one that makes religious people like nuns purchase insurance that has contraception and abortifacients. When Obama was bringing in mostly Muslims and very few Christians. When he deported a family of Christians back to Germany who wanted to home school their kids. When states were slamming people who are religious for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings.

As to legal protection under the law, these foreign citizens in foreign nations are not under our protection. Our Constitution does not apply to them unless we choose to let them in. These are people outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

This is the slippery slope Leftists employ to get their way. They pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they like when they like it.

David B. Rivkin Jr.: Karen is jousting at a straw man. This executive order, by its very terms, does no more than suspend for 90 days entry for individuals from seven countries that have been identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism and where the conditions on the ground do not allow for high-quality vetting. The language of the executive order aside, there are more than 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world, and the vast majority of them are not affected by this order.

In addition to the rewriting of the order, Karen ignores the fact that the statutory and constitutional authorities overwhelmingly support the president’s ability to issue such an executive order. First, Congress expressly granted the president broad discretionary and non-reviewable authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens . . . or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” if he finds that such an entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” This authority, by the way, has been utilized by numerous past presidents, including both Presidents Bush, President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama.

Rivkin continues smacking her around (misogynistic language!!!!!), and Tumlin keeps trotting down the road of discriminatory language, yada yada yada. She should read the Constitution at some point, and realize that, no matter how much she likes globalism and open borders, the Constitution still doesn’t apply to foreigners in foreign nations.

Tumlin: The president is not king. He, too, must abide by our Constitution as well as the immigration laws duly written and passed by Congress. What the president has done here is attempt to hastily legislate by executive fiat.

Tumlin previously had no problem with Obama’s kingly immigration orders, because they conformed to her Worldview. And, guess what? He is abiding by the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and as given to him by the Constitution. Neither is under any obligation to allow unfettered immigration to our country. There is no Constitutional or legal right for foreigners to come to our country when they want. It is our determination as to whether we want them. If they’re a potential threat, why would we want them?

BTW, the National Immigration Law Center is, shockingly, provided massive funding by many left leaning, open borders groups and individuals, including George Soros, and is huge on open borders, and has a big purpose in giving illegal aliens government funded everything.

Double BTW, the narrative on no one from the countries in question being arrested? That has been blown up and debunked.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Say, Is Trump’s Executive Order Temporarily Blocking People From Seven Nations Legal?”

  1. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Immigrating to America is a privilege, not a right. It is not only Constitutional but it is absolutely urgent that our government have the right, duty and responsibility to discriminate against any person or group for ANY reason whatsoever. The governments first and most important duty is to protect the people of the United States and that includes banning any person or group they feel is a threat.

    Also threats notwithstanding, we have the right to deny entrance to any immigrant if they cannot support themselves, if they are ill or carry a disease, have a criminal background or for any other reason we decide makes their entry undesirable or non beneficial to our country.

    From the 1960’s till today approximately 35 million Mexicans have immigrated to the US. About 20% of the population of Mexico. That is NOT immigration. That is INVASION. There is absolutely no reason why the US should admit one single additional Mexican unless and until the ones here are all assimilated, speaking English, working and off the public dole and we actually need the talents they are bringing in.

    There is no reason moslems should be allowed into America. They do not assimilate, have allegiances only to allah and not our form of government but rather theocracy. Their cult/religion practices female mutilation, stoning, rape, pedophilia, execution of non moslems and homosexuals and slavery and is incompatible with 21st century civilization. Moslems needing relocation should be relocated to other moslem countries so they can enjoy each others blessings. Only an idiot would wish on America what is happening in France, Sweden and Germany.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Whether or not Trump’s Executive Order is legal or not is not a simple black and white yes or no answer.

    USC § 1182(f) does indeed allow the President to ban people or classes of people from entering the country. :

    (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.

    That part of the code was written in 1952. (Why the date becomes important will become apparent in a moment.)

    In 1965, the US Congress passed an immigration act, part of which was codified into U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)

    (A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, 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.

    In other words, the Congress, who makes immigration policy, initially told the Executive Branch (which implements the policy) that the Executive Branch could limit or ban any class of people the Executive Branch wanted.

    In 1965, (after the passage of allowing the banning of classes of people) the Congress came back and said, “you can still ban classes of people, but you cannot ban these classes of people.” One of those classes the Executive Branch cannot ban whole cloth is a class based on nationality.

    Trump’s order does just that. It bans people whole cloth based on nationality.

    That’s not a death knell to the order though. If you read the whole thing it does list classes of people as well. That’s legal. The false step might be the jump from banning those classes of people to the banning based on the nation a person comes from.

    The legal basis of the order is sound. There is no doubt about that. It seems, however, that the order goes too far and is too broad in banning a class of people that Congress has said you cannot ban.

    We do have profiles of people that are typically terrorists and we should ban their entry into the US. We should continue to allow the State Department and DHS to ban individuals from country if they are seen as a threat. That too is legal.

    In some ways this might be a case where Trump is playing the game better than most people think he can.

    He institutes a ban on whole countries and then while the ban is fighting out in courts, the State Department and DHS are making new rules and regulations for vetting of people coming into the country. In the end, he gets what he (and most people) wants – stronger immigration procedures. It is not the first time that Trump has zagged while people claimed he was zigging and I suspect it won’t be the last.

    Anyways, it is fair to say that the order is legal in parts and overly broad in others. It is a subtle distinction that most will miss nor care about.

  3. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    The law does say we can’t ban people on the basis of nationality. Whoever wrote that law is an idiot. So if we are at war with China we can’t ban Chinese people? That needs to be changed. Actually the whole law needs to be scrapped and a new law written that states we can ban anybody for any reason. Why would any country put any stipulation on who it can deny entry to? Who the hell can see the future and what dire needs may occur? Why is it even an issue? It’s so stupid I’m flabbergasted.

    • gitarcarver says:

      The law does allow the banning of immigrants in the case of a declared national emergency which is defined to include a war.

      In essence, if the person can help make the US a better place, why wouldn’t we want to accept them into the country? If the person is a threat, running from the law, or any other variety of things, why would we want them here?

      Good people? Welcome.

      Bad people? Stay out.

      That’s why the vetting process should be enhanced and in no way should the US have so called “open borders.”

Bad Behavior has blocked 9493 access attempts in the last 7 days.