Immigration, Trump, and the Supreme Court
I warned you in June that liberals would use a liberal Supreme Court majority to force open borders onto the nation without Congressional approval.
We see that with the Brooklyn judge, and the former acting Attorney General, how the forces of the left would twist legal interpretation to get the open borders results that they want. We were only saved from a huge disaster because Trump won the election and Republican Senators hung tight and followed Joe Biden’s prophetic advice from the 1990s to not approve a new Supreme Court justice until the next president came into office.
When Trump names his new Supreme Court nominee, it’s the immigration issue that’s most important. The Court split 4-4 in June. A fifth justice who believes that the country is allowed to enforce its borders and place restrictions on who is allowed to immigrate here is essential.
* * *
Regarding the executive order by Trump to deny entry visas to people from seven countries, the Obama administration previously placed travel restrictions on those same countries because they have terrorist training camps or are state sponsors of terrorism, and no one on the left had even the slightest complaint. It’s within the President’s authority on matters of immigration both based on the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress for Trump to expand those restriction to deny all entry visas. Jimmy Carter did the same thing in 1980 with respect to Iran, and he didn’t need Congress to approve it, and it didn’t violate the Constitution.
So don’t be fooled by the mainstream media into having even the slightest doubt that Trump did something wrong here.
The only problem is that it’s only a very small step in addressing the bigger problem of immigration from all over the world, and yes, especially from Islamic countries. Look what happened to France after they allowed Muslims to become too large of a percentage of the population.
The Constitution doesn’t protect citizens of other countries who don’t live in the United States. That’s why Obama could order bombs to be dropped, thus killing a lot of people in other countries, whenever he deemed it necessary to protect the United States. Compared to killing people with bombs, not allowing them to immigrate here is minor stuff.
Regarding the First Amendment, when the Founders wrote that Amendment, there were only Christians living here who were able to get along with each other without resorting to inter-sect violence, plus a tiny number of Jews who kept to themselves and didn’t bother anyone. The Founders never envisioned that liberals 230 years in the future would say that the First Amendment requires us to allow unlimited Muslim immigration when an alarmingly high percentage of Muslims believe in jihadist terrorism.
It’s interesting to note how the liberals support a “living Constitution” when it suits their interests, but then argue strict adherence to the text when it also suits their interests.
And anyway, the Supreme Court has always held that immigration policy is for Congress and the President and not to be interfered with by the judicial branch. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), the Supreme Court upheld a Congressional statute to expel non-citizens who were former Communists. If that didn’t violate the First Amendment, then the lesser action of not allowing non-citizens into the country in the first place because of their beliefs doesn’t violate the First Amendment. In fact, based on Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, we can logically conclude that it would be Constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring the expulsion of non-citizens who are Muslim, even those with green cards. And therefore, the lesser action of banning all new Muslim immigration would certainly be Constitutional.