There has certainly been a lot of debate as to whether President Trump's so-called 'travel ban", the executive order signed on January 27 temporarily suspending the granting of visas from seven countries that are believed to be supplying many of the terrorists plaguing the world. Critics of the executive order call it a Muslim ban, which is not true, as the majority of Muslim countries do not fall under the ban. Others state that the executive order violates the Constitution in that it is discriminatory towards those people based on national origin and religious preference.
U.S. District Judge James Robart of the Western District of Washington, the judge who issued the temporary restraining order on the ban, ruled that the state of Washington has legal standing to challenge the executive order based on the argument that the state could sue as "parens patriae" on behalf of various groups of their residents, these groups defined as those who work with refugees, residents who already have visas or green cards, businesses who want to employ refugees, and possibly the refugees themselves. (National Review)
What the judge chose to ignore was that Trump acted fully within the statutory authority granted to him by Congress under federal statute 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), which was cited by the President in his executive order. In other words, Congress gave the President the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the United States based on the judgment that the entry of those persons would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The statute also allows for the President to do so for such period as he shall deem necessary. In this case, Trump issued the executive order as a temporary measure to ensure that resources are available to review screening procedures and that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks.
The courts do not come into play in this situation because, because under the law, the decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a "fundamental sovereign attribute" realized through the legislative and executive branches and therefore is largely immune from judicial control. There is no Constitutional right for any foreigner to enter the United States. The Constitution gives Congress complete authority over immigration, and by passing the federal statute, the legislative branch provided the President the authority to suspend the entry of aliens into the country. Therefore, no federal judge has the authority to substitute his or her judgment for that of the president when it comes to making a decision on what is detrimental to the national security and foreign policy interests of the nation. Based on this, it becomes obvious that the judge has overstepped his Constitutional authority. The judge is not authorized to make immigration policy decisions. His sole role is to review whether the President has acted on authority from the Constitution and federal law.
Let me end by repeating this thought: No foreigner has the Constitutional right to enter this country. But then again, how often have liberals followed the Constitution lately?
U.S. District Judge James Robart of the Western District of Washington, the judge who issued the temporary restraining order on the ban, ruled that the state of Washington has legal standing to challenge the executive order based on the argument that the state could sue as "parens patriae" on behalf of various groups of their residents, these groups defined as those who work with refugees, residents who already have visas or green cards, businesses who want to employ refugees, and possibly the refugees themselves. (National Review)
What the judge chose to ignore was that Trump acted fully within the statutory authority granted to him by Congress under federal statute 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), which was cited by the President in his executive order. In other words, Congress gave the President the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the United States based on the judgment that the entry of those persons would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The statute also allows for the President to do so for such period as he shall deem necessary. In this case, Trump issued the executive order as a temporary measure to ensure that resources are available to review screening procedures and that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks.
The courts do not come into play in this situation because, because under the law, the decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a "fundamental sovereign attribute" realized through the legislative and executive branches and therefore is largely immune from judicial control. There is no Constitutional right for any foreigner to enter the United States. The Constitution gives Congress complete authority over immigration, and by passing the federal statute, the legislative branch provided the President the authority to suspend the entry of aliens into the country. Therefore, no federal judge has the authority to substitute his or her judgment for that of the president when it comes to making a decision on what is detrimental to the national security and foreign policy interests of the nation. Based on this, it becomes obvious that the judge has overstepped his Constitutional authority. The judge is not authorized to make immigration policy decisions. His sole role is to review whether the President has acted on authority from the Constitution and federal law.
Let me end by repeating this thought: No foreigner has the Constitutional right to enter this country. But then again, how often have liberals followed the Constitution lately?
RSS Feed