Every last one of the blocks of Trump’s travel bans ignores the statute that gives the President sweeping power to limit immigration:
(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.
But now acting to defend the United States is “Islamophobic.” Trump is recognizing the undeniable fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadis from peaceful refugees. But clearly the Left will fight him to the death to keep him from defending the American people.
take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
“The Supreme Court Just Killed The Refugee Ban Challenge,” by Kevin Daley, Daily Caller, October 24, 2017:
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the second and final challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and migrants Tuesday, concluding that the expiration of a 120-day ban on refugee resettlement ended the controversy.
The dismissal ends a protracted round of litigating around the president’s order that was replaced in late September by a new round of travel sanctions against eight countries. Those sanctions are currently under challenges.
The justices dismissed the first travel ban case Oct. 10. That case arose in Maryland and concerned the order’s 90-day ban on the entry of migrants from six countries with high instances of terrorism. The ban’s expiration effectively “mooted” the case, the justices concluded. Federal courts are only empowered to hear ongoing controversies where their action can affect an outcome. When the controversy concludes and renders further court action irrelevant, the case is considered moot and is thereafter dismissed.
The second case arose in Hawaii, and also challenged the 120-day ban on refugee resettlement. The court’s Oct. 10 decision left little suspense as to how justices would dispense with the Hawaii case — as in the Maryland case, the justices said the termination of the 120-day refugee ban mooted the controversy, warranting dismissal….
The order is a victory for the administration, that asked the justices to dismiss the cases in September. The orders also wipe out adverse lower court rulings limiting the president’s authority.
Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don’t see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.
