A Few Things About the Immigration Executive Order

Naturally, if Trump does something, liberals find some reason to express their faux outrage. I know I haven’t blogged here much–or at all–lately, but I thought I’d just compile some important information for everyone to consider before jumping to conclusions, and of course, to highlight the hypocrisy of those who claim to be outraged.

The list of countries covered by the executive order came from Obama

Contrary to claims that the countries covered were determined by which countries Trump has or doesn’t have business interests, the list actually comes from the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which was signed by Obama.

The Executive Order allows for exemptions

All you have to do is read it.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

The president has the authority to restrict travel

For those people who think the Executive Order exceeded presidential authority, they should read 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

(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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Every President since Carter has restricted travel from certain groups of immigrants

Alex Pfieffer at The Daily Caller goes into detail about what each president did with that authority, so give it a read.

 Obama “banned” Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011

ABC News reported back in 2013, “the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.” Does anyone recall outrage about this? Me neither. The action was clearly rooted in a legitimate security concern that was determined to outweigh other considerations.

As it is written, it is not supposed to cover current green-card holders

David French, hardly a Trump supporter, explains at National Review “The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks.” Either the EO is being improperly implemented, or somehow, the Trump Administration is interpreting the EO differently. Regardless, I completely agree that green-card holders should not be targeted by the EO, and if they are, deliberately, or accidentally, it is wrong and needs to be remedied.

On that note, French’s piece as whole is worth reading.

29 thoughts on “A Few Things About the Immigration Executive Order

  1. Amazona January 29, 2017 / 4:25 pm

    French’s piece is excellent and seems to cover all the bases.

    Slightly OT, but it seems to me that the presidency has changed Trump. I know the presidency has to change those who hold the office, but in Obama’s case it seemed to merely confirm and expand his already massive sense of self-righteousness and entitlement. What I find interesting is that already, in only a week, it seems to have humbled Trump—-and that is what we would like to see. Watching a proud and ambitious man—which one has to be to even seek the office—-become even more proud and even more seeking of power once he gains it is alarming. Watching a proud and ambitious man develop humility in the face of his responsibility is, I think, encouraging.

  2. Cluster January 30, 2017 / 8:11 am

    I read many articles re: these executive orders yesterday and then found David French’s piece at NRO and he summarized it and put it into perspective then anyone. These are temporary common sense measures that target the jihadist hot spots around the world where information on refugees is limited at best. Also, anything that makes Chuck Schumer cry is on the right track.

  3. Cluster January 30, 2017 / 9:33 am

    You never have to go back to far in history to find liberal hypocrisy and thanks to our friends at Daily Caller, we have found another fine example:

    Despite today’s outrage over President Donald Trump’s refugee executive order, many liberals in 1975 were part of a chorus of big name Democrats who refused to accept any Vietnamese refugees when millions were trying to escape South Vietnam as it fell to the communists………….Then-Sen. Joe Biden tried to slow down the refugee bill in the Senate, complaining that he needed more details about the quickly unfolding refugee problem before he would support it.

    Of course this is in addition to the ban of Iranian immigrants by Jimmy Carter, and Obama’s temporary ban of Iraqi refugees. Keep this in mind as we watch liberals cry today.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/flashback-when-liberal-democrats-opposed-refugees-and-even-orphans/#ixzz4XFecdEOy

    • Amazona January 30, 2017 / 12:37 pm

      I think it was 60 Minutes last night—whatever the fake-news show on See BS is—-and it started with a heart-breaking sob story about refugees. I usually avoid those shows but it came on while I was cooking, so I kind of listened to it. There was a lot of emotional stuff, but when they identified an opponent of Syrian refugees as a REPUBLICAN governor I went in and turned it off.

      They put that together pretty fast, though had probably been working on it ever since Candidate Trump talked about blocking refugees from some countries.

      As for Dems having hissy fits about refugees, I can start with two words: Elian Gonzales.

      • Cluster January 30, 2017 / 6:18 pm

        That’s right, I had forgotten about Elian. Wasn’t he hiding in a closet and ripped out of his Aunt’s arms by immigration forces in the dead of night? Not exactly refugee friendly.

      • Amazona January 31, 2017 / 11:39 am

        The removal of Elian Gonzales was illegal. During that period I heard a very long interview with a man who, in the Regan administration, actually wrote the law protecting political refugees, and it specifically included children.

        You might remember the time the Russian sailor jumped overboard off a Russian ship and asked for asylum, only to be turned over to the Russians. He did it again, and was returned again. When Reagan learned of this, he was outraged, and said that is not what this county stands for, and called for new regulations on political asylum.

        Janet Reno ignored this and sent in heavily armed men to yank this terrified child out of the arms of his aunt, and shipped him back to Cuba. That is how “American values” were defined during the Clinton years, and I never saw any of the Leftist hysterics out there complaining about it.

      • tiredoflibbs January 31, 2017 / 12:49 pm

        If memory serves, Janet Reno had to “judge shop” to find a Federal judge who signed off on the raid.

        Also when it comes to immigration, did not the Supreme Court state that “immigration” (legal or illegal) was to be only determined and enforced by the federal government? So, where does the “sanctuary cities or now California state” get their authority to not enforce immigration law? Again, Democrats want to have it both ways – only they (when they are in charge) can determine the enforcement level or now (when they are not in charge) only states and municipalities can determine the enforcement level.

        Let’s not worry about details of Democrat refugee denials – Vietnamese, Japanese, Germans and European Jews (most captured and murdered in death camps) or the fact that they rounded up US citizens of Japanese decent and locked them up – noooo, don’t even mention those events. They are the only ones that “care”…….

  4. Cluster January 30, 2017 / 6:33 pm

    So I am watching MSNBC and “experts” are telling me that the immigration pause is now being used a recruiting tool for ISIS. I will say this, if anyone is an expert in recruiting jihadists it would be the Democrats, but strangely enough Obama’s ban of Iraqi refugees did not have the same effect. Odd.

  5. Cluster January 30, 2017 / 6:37 pm

    This statement from the Border Patrol and ICE is all anyone needs to know:

    The men and women of ICE and Border Patrol will work tirelessly to keep criminals, terrorists, and public safety threats out of this country, which remains the number one target in the world – and President Trump’s actions now empower us to fulfill this life saving mission, and it will indeed save thousands of lives and billions of dollars

    • M. Noonan January 30, 2017 / 10:09 pm

      A Rasmussen poll showed 57% support for the visa restrictions…of course, this was before the weekend lunacy from the left. We’ll see if that moves the needle, but the bottom line is that Trump isn’t going to lose this argument.

  6. Retired Spook January 30, 2017 / 7:08 pm

    The media are really going off the deep end on this minor immigration suspension. I saw a headline comparing it to the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. Seriously?

    • M. Noonan January 30, 2017 / 10:08 pm

      On Social Media, they are treating it like Kristallnacht – and actually congratulating themselves for standing tall against the new Holocaust. Our good troll Godfrey Elfwick isn’t being left out:

      When the next generation ask: what did YOU do when Trump came to power? I’ll proudly say: “I called him a Nazi while dressed like a vagina.”

      These people are just entirely ’round the bend. I never thought that it would be like this – that Progressive insanity would give us the prime opportunity to completely remove them from political power. If we don’t seize this golden opportunity, we deserve to lose.

      • Retired Spook January 30, 2017 / 11:20 pm

        It just gets crazier and crazier.

        Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates Monday night for “refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House said.

        “(Yates) has betrayed the Department of Justice,” the White House statement said.

        This has the potential to spiral out of control very quickly.

      • M. Noonan January 31, 2017 / 12:30 am

        It is for the left and the MSM (but I repeat myself): they are calling it the “Monday Night Massacre”. I think that Trump is determined to force the issue…he’s not backing down and going straight ahead. The good news, policy-wise, is that the real action will be in Congress…while the Democrats spend all their time fighting Trump on whatever he’s tweaking them about, Congress could pass law after law after law enshrining not just Trump policies, but core, Conservative policies into very difficult-to-repeal laws.

      • Amazona January 31, 2017 / 11:20 am

        Dems are taunting Trump, daring him to crack down on their illegal activities, and I think they are making a mistake. They think they can goad him into going too far and reversing the trend of his support, but what is happening is that they have to go so far to bait him, they are the ones losing support.

        One of the things I see happening is that for the half dozen real journalists out there (being optimistic about the number) the Trump moves are like Christmas with more goodies piled under the tree than they can play with, and as they cover one after another of his successes, the rest of the faux “journalists” either have to ignore what is going on or just keep howling at the moon. Trump can and probably will push this by ignoring the Complicit Agenda puppets of the Left and continuing to call on reporters, in his press conferences, who are serious about reporting the news instead of just pushing an agenda.

        This would be a perfect time for a surprise bill to hit the Senate and House floors, to make oaths of office binding, with proof of violation calling for immediate removal from office and loss of pension. And it would apply to judges, too. That may even be where it is most needed.

      • M. Noonan January 31, 2017 / 3:32 pm

        Democrats are caught between a rock and a hard place – the rock being the substance between the ears of their base, the hard place being President Trump. You just know that Schumer would like to pick a battle or two where they might be able to get a win – the DeVos nomination was probably the Democrats best shot at actually stopping a Trump nominee – and generally keep their powder dry for the policy battles to come over the course of this year…but his base is insisting upon absolute opposition. But when you do that, you look to regular folks like idiots…and you actually make it impossible to defeat Trump on any issue.

        Talking to Progressives, they are certain that this absolute opposition is the key to their victory – they have talked themselves into believing that the GOP went this route starting in 2009 and it brought them eventual total control of the government. What they are missing is that the GOP did no such thing – it was the TEA Party which started the opposition and even at the height of TEA Party activity, the GOP wasn’t doing stupid things like objecting to even run-of-the-mill activities like a Presidential cabinet nominee.

        Manchin is largely safe from Democrat base pressures – but the rest of them, even Red State Democrats, aren’t…and I think that come 2018, we’re going to see the Democrats beating each other to death.

      • Amazona January 31, 2017 / 11:34 am

        Yates acknowledged that there was a credible argument that the executive order was constitutional—she said only that she was not convinced by the OLC’s determination that it was lawful, hinting at the president’s campaign-trail calls for a “Muslim ban.” But many laws of dubious constitutionality are routinely, and zealously, defended in court by the Justice Department. Her objection, instead, was that the order was unwise or unjust.

        Sally spent too much time in the Obama “Justice” Department, where political allegiance dictated which laws would be applied and defended and which would be ignored. And she was evidently infected by the same Liberal hubris that tells officials they can make their own determinations about what a law really means and if they don’t agree with it they can just pretend it doesn’t exist. You can screech about “codes” if you are on the street with a sign, or writing on a blog, but the head of the Justice Department can’t go sniffing around for imagined “codes” in presidential decisions.


  7. Cluster January 31, 2017 / 8:31 am

    A few Muslim Americans voice their opinions:

    “If these people really wanted to make a difference, they can become mommies and daddies in refugee camps in Syria or Iraq. Spend time with the people who truly are in need of help.

    For years President Obama bombed countries in the Middle East, and I didn’t see them protesting. It’s incredibly hypocritical to be doing what they’re doing now.

    And they cry racism. As a Muslim-American, I’ve never missed any opportunities because of my ethnic background, religion, or skin color. I’d have just as much of a chance as any white American or any American in general. So has my family.

    I refuse to believe that I’m a minority as well. Here in America, everyone is granted the same chance at the American dream. The case would be different if I was in say Iraq or Syria.”


  8. Retired Spook January 31, 2017 / 9:20 am

    OT, but if Trump actually does investigate and resolve a substantial amount of the voter fraud that Democrats have been getting away with for years, it could alter the political landscape more than any other single action he could take.

    • Amazona January 31, 2017 / 11:08 am

      Spook, that is a fascinating article, on a couple of fronts. One is that Democrats in California realize that even there they need to cheat to win. That surprised me, because I thought if there is any state in the Union Dems could feel confident about, it would be California. Evidently not.

      The other is the sheer audacity of some of the actions Dems took to steal votes.

    • jdge1 January 31, 2017 / 2:15 pm

      I would hope for several things in regards to correcting election voter fraud. First, determine the extent of the fraud in previous elections, the methods used and by whom. Second, the prosecution of any and all individuals / groups involved either directly or indirectly, but particularly elected officials where one of their primary responsibilities is election integrity. Third, set in place a number of preventative actions to eliminate voter fraud along with mechanisms to verify and ensure those preventative actions are enforced, including fines and jail sentences. This preventative action should mandate that all voter rolls be purged at least once every ten years, preferably everyone at the same time. For example, this could be part of the US census done every 10 years, where other information gathered would correlate to the legitimacy of each household’s potential voters. Forth, anytime any voting poll official from any party sees or strongly suspects irregular or illegal activity, they must immediately report it to a specific entity (such as an election judge), who upon being contacted about this activity must take any and all necessary action, up to and including sending police to the voting poll, to rectify the potential transgression(s). All of this should be followed by an official report of each step taken in the process. These activities could include claims of fraud or intimidation, excessively long wait times, machine snafus, controversies over counting votes and anything else that could threaten the right to vote or the integrity of the process. Fifth, any voting poll that has been shown to have illegal activity transpire, particularly those directly affecting vote counts, must refrain from reporting their official voting results until this situation can be rectified. Sixth, all votes, including absentee votes must be counted, BEFORE reporting the voting poll’s official count, regardless if they affect the overall state count or not.

      I’m sure there are a number of other things that should be included in the list above, but those provisions are what come to mind and should be significant part of correcting voter fraud.

      I’m also inclined to change the requirement of all Electoral College to vote for the person who obtained the state’s popular vote. I’m not sure exactly how I’d approach that but 2 different ways come to mind. We might divide each state’s vote based on a percentage basis where the winning candidate receives a higher percentage Electoral College votes determined by a standard formula. Or, we might simply use the popular vote from each county to reflect 1 (or more depending on something like county population as of the last US census), Electoral vote. It seems like this would provide a greater voice from each state’s minority party(s), especially in states like NY and California. I believe this change would still make us a Republic (as opposed to a democracy) and would at the same time help stem voter fraud to some extent as the efforts needed to garner each Electoral College vote would be much greater (and therefore more costly / difficult). This would be part of the reason why I’d require provision six from above, to count all votes.

      • Amazona January 31, 2017 / 4:24 pm

        JDGE1, good post. I don’t know how we can go back and show voter fraud in prior elections, other than being able to match the names of illegal voters in this election with names of those who voted in past elections. That alone ought to be enough to show that it has been going on for a long time.

        I fully agree on maximum penalties for voter fraud. As I have said many times, a law without a penalty is just like no law at all. (Just as an oath with no penalty for violation is like no oath at all.)

        When we get to allocation of state Electoral votes, it gets a little more complicated. I lean toward letting electors vote their consciences, and letting state party organizations deal with those who promise to do one thing and then do another. We forget that our parties are private enterprises, and allowed to make their own rules. I trip over the line between state sovereignty and federal authority, as well as any line between government authority and private enterprise, and because our political parties end up dictating who runs the country I am sure there is an argument to be made for some kind of government intervention. I have said for a long time, since the Dems purposely set up hard-to-read ballots in Florida for the 2000 presidential election and then simultaneously hired a firm to contact Florida voters in counties where there was a chance Bush would win to tell Dem voters they might have accidentally voted for Bush, specifically to create chaos and undermine the process, that when it comes to voting for the president I think there should be laws regarding uniformity of ballots.

        I think if we were enforce some federal uniformity on presidential elections, we should start by eliminating very early voting. Too many things change as we near the deadline, or Election Tuesday, and there is too much opportunity for mischief, when some ballots are received weeks in advance.

        There is a difference between Electoral College delegates and convention delegates, and I think their duties have to be evaluated differently.

        Regarding convention delegates: I would set up primary debates much differently than they are now. I would have every hopeful alone in a private room, where he or she is given the same questions all other hopefuls get. I’d set up rooms in the same building, with extensive tech security to eliminate passing on information on questions or coaching on answers. He or she would be recorded, audio and video, and when the answer is finished would hit a button (similar to the time clock for chess matches) and then move on to the next question. An answer could take 30 seconds or five minutes—up to the hopeful. Each question would be stand-alone, and not influenced by any response from a hopeful. This would eliminate the name calling and insults we get when one hopeful attacks another based on his or her answer, and would mean a true apples-to-apples comparison of their proposed policies and their philosophies. I would have every party do this on the same day.

        This way, every citizen could go to the website for each hopeful, and look at those answers, taking as much time as necessary to process those answers and compare them to the answers given by others. It would be a dramatic shift from street theater to a battle of ideas, and would take a lot of emotion out of the process. It would also establish a much more level playing field by eliminating much of the costly current process of in-person campaigning. Hopefuls could still run ads, and could even visit states they find important, but the actual questions would be the same for everyone, with everyone having an equal opportunity to answer, and the answers would be available to everyone.

        Then I would have a Primary Day, a couple of weeks later, where all parties would have their primary voting at the same time.

        I think this would put The People more in charge of who they want as their candidates, and start to move away from the posturing, name calling, insults and emotional gamesmanship we see now. It would make money less important. If primaries were set up this way, the votes would still be widely divided, making it harder than ever to decide who “won” any given primary, so it’s not ideal, but it would eliminate the useless “debates” we have now, with the rudest hopeful dominating by interrupting, moderators slanting the questions according to their personal agendas, some hopefuls being denied air time because someone has decided they won’t draw as much attention as the putative front-runners, etc.

        Then it would be up to the conventions to pick the actual candidates. That might make the conventions more like what they are supposed to be, instead of mere formalities rubber-stamping a preordained conclusion. Then the conventions would consist of winning over delegates from one hopeful to another, just as it used to be, and because the primary votes would be so widespread it wouldn’t make sense to try to bind convention delegates to the primary results.

        With a system like this, with less control from above and more input from the citizen voters, binding Electoral College delegates to the winners in their states in the actual election might not be as problematic.

  9. Retired Spook January 31, 2017 / 3:04 pm

    The dual photos at the top of this article speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the Left. Add this to the list of reasons why Trump won.

  10. Cluster January 31, 2017 / 3:45 pm

    Re: Trump’s cabinet – where in the F**K is Mitch McConnell?? I need to ask the seasoned vets here – can’t McConnell just approve these folks with 51 votes? Thanks to Harry Reid. If so, then why is he not doing that????

    • M. Noonan January 31, 2017 / 6:59 pm

      From what I understand, if the Democrats boycott the hearings, then the committee lacks a quorum and thus can’t vote…however, the nominees can still be moved to the floor without a recommendation.

      As for me, I’d go completely nuclear on this – tell Schumer he’s got five minutes to get his troops in line or I’ll appoint GOPers to fill the Democrat seats on the committees.

      • Amazona January 31, 2017 / 11:53 pm

        The rules are that nine on the Committee have to present, with at least two of the minority party. So even though there are 9 Republicans on the Committee, they still need two Dems. The R’s are well represented with some good people—-the D’s have Al Franken and Dianne Feinberg and Blumenthal. They clearly just needed placeholders, not serious legislators.

    • Amazona January 31, 2017 / 8:36 pm

      McConnell is where he always is, cowering in a corner whimpering and trying to figure out how to avoid upsetting any Democrats.

      I like Mark’s idea—they can play nice or we can just play without them. Are the sizes of the committees set by law? That is, through Congressional legislation then signed by the president? If not, then add to the size of the committee so the Dems are outnumbered.

      You know, we were the ones who first came up with the “Party Of No” slogan, which was then hijacked by the Dems. Time to revive it. The administration can’t operate without a fully staffed cabinet and court, and if the Dems want to pout let them do it on their own time. Personally, I would have some Congressional staffers set up a Safe Room for Dems, complete with Play-Doh and crayons, and tell them if they aren’t up to doing their jobs we have a nice place for them to hang out. And don’t forget the Chuck E. Schumer Memorial Tissue Box.

      And then leave a nice big stack of copies of the Constitution in the middle of the table.

    • tiredoflibbs February 1, 2017 / 1:43 pm

      McConnell is part of the swamp dwellers that need to go. He is part of the establishment. We have seen him profess a position against Obama, legislation or Obama nominee and each and ever time he caved to Obama.

      • M. Noonan February 1, 2017 / 2:26 pm

        Gotta give props to McConnell for standing firm on the SC, though…

Comments are closed.