Courts, International, Religion

Federal Court Stays Executive Order On Refugees
donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_cropped gavel2Yesterday, I discussed the constitutionality of the executive order halting all refugee entries to the United States.  Late on Saturday, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Donnelly ruled in favor of a habeas corpus petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  The petition was brought on behalf of two Iraqi men detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Friday.  As I discussed on CNN after the ruling, this is decision to stay not to enjoin. The latter will require a showing by the ACLU that it is substantially likely to prevail on the merits, a tough standard to satisfy.  Judge Donnelly effective froze developments in the case pending a hearing on the case.

Donnelly’s order below is based on the finding that irreparable harm would befall the two men for any ruling on the merits could be issued. Donnelly, an Obama appointee, will now have chance to hear the merits in a likely expedited schedule.

Trump barred Syrian refugees indefinitely. It also stops the resettlement of all refugees for four months as the administration reviews the vetting process.  He also denied entry for 90 days for anyone coming from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen.

 

As I discussed earlier, Trump has the advantage on the existing precedent though his statements about favoring Christians will complicate the defense of the order.  Before his interview, Trump was maintaining that the law was not religious based.  Indeed, a federal court should not presume that this is a “Muslim rule” given the fact that many Muslim countries are not subject to the order barring entry.  Whatever the suspicions of the Court regarding the motivations behind the law, it is not a blanket bar on Muslims.  Trump’s comments however then inserted an express religious preference into the debate.  That will not be helpful but there remains considerable authority reaffirming executive power over the borders of the nation.
Here is the opinion: ACLU order

273 thoughts on “Federal Court Stays Executive Order On Refugees”

  1. An article published on the Cons Law Prof Blog has some excellent substance:

    President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) late Friday afternoon entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” (The text is not yet on Whitehouse.gov; it is reproduced in the New York Times here].

    Is it constitutional, specifically on the basis of equal protection?

    The preliminary question is whether equal protection is an applicable doctrine. Despite being in the Fourteenth Amendment governing state action, the principle of equal protection has long been held to constrain actions by the federal government. In Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), for example, a companion case to Brown to Board of Education, the Court essentially held that the equal protection principles of Brown would apply to the D.C. schools of Bolling through the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. One of the precedents on which the Court in Bolling relied was Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), in which the Court phrased the issue regarding the constitutionality of federal military orders regarding Japanese internment as:

    The questions for our decision are whether the particular restriction violated, namely, that all persons of Japanese ancestry residing in such an area be within their place of residence daily between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., was adopted by the military commander in the exercise of an unconstitutional delegation by Congress of its legislative power, and whether the restriction unconstitutionally discriminated between citizens of Japanese ancestry and those of other ancestries in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

    In Hirabayashi, the Court famously pronounced

    Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are, by their very, nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. For that reason, legislative classification or discrimination based on race alone has often been held to be a denial of equal protection.

    The support for this principle in Hirabayashi was Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), which involved state action that affected Chinese nationals in California, excluded from citizenship by federal law. In Yick Wo, the Court was clear that “any person” in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment was “universal in their application to all persons” without regard to any differences of nationality.

    But Yick Wo does not mean that equal protection or other constitutional rights apply globally. The question of what “subject to the jurisdiction” of the state or federal government as applied to noncitizens means is a vexing one. For example, in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) involving the habeas corpus rights of noncitizens detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Court rehearsed the “extraterritorality cases” and ultimately concluded that the Suspension Clause (generally prohibiting the suspension of habeas corpus), in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, applied to noncitizens detained at Guantanamo Bay. Unlike the “enemy combatants” in Boumediene, however, the “noncitizens” subject to the President’s Executive Order (EO) often have substantial links to the United States. Although the language of the EO lacks clarity on the question, a government spokesperson today has stated that the EO applies to permanent legal residents, often known as “green card” holders. Thus, all “aliens” are not the same. Instead, there is a sliding scale of rights, greatest in a naturalized citizen and least in a non-resident non-citizen without any immigration status, but in between there are numerous other categories including those who are permanent legal residents, including those who have “rights” that are “more extensive and secure” because the person has made “preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen,” Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950). Moreover, the question of territoriality is also cloudy. As the EO went into effect, some people were landing in the United States, and thus “in” the country, and for “permanent residents” who may have been traveling briefly abroad and have no other home, their domicile may be in the United States.

    Assuming the Equal Protection Clause applies, the EO on its face makes classifications based on national origin and religious identity. The national origin classification is clear and by reference, the EO applies to 7 nations: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. These nations are Muslim-majority nations, and a provision of the EO regarding refugee status directs priority to “refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. ”

    Generally, classifications based on national origin, as well as religious identity, would receive strict scrutiny, as derived from the famous footnote four of United States v. Carolene Products Company, although religious identities are more rarely litigated under Equal Protection (one example is here), given the robust First Amendment protections.

    When the federal power over immigration is involved, it may be argued that the otherwise applicable level of scrutiny is less appropriate, or even if it does apply, its application includes greater deference to the national government. But in cases such as Nyguen v. INS (2001), involving a Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge to a federal gender classification with differing rules for unwed mothers and for unwed fathers in their ability to confer derivative citizenship, the Court carefully considered the usual level of scrutiny. And in a similar recently-argued case, Lynch v. Morales-Santana, there was little indication that simplistic deference to the national government was appropriate; the Second Circuit had held that the gender differential violated equal protection.

    If strict scrutiny applied to this national origin and religious classifications, it would require a compelling government interest with the means chosen being narrowly tailored. National security is oft-considered a compelling interest, and the EO repeatedly cites “September 11.” Yet, even accepting that this would be compelling, there are serious problems proving the narrowly tailored prong. If one accepts the “September 11” rationale, the link to an event more than 15 years ago is tenuous. Additionally, even if there was such a link, there is no overlap in the nationality of those involved in the September 11 attacks and those targeted in the EO.

    Not only is there a mismatch between the nationalities of September 11 attackers and the nationalities of those targeted in the EO, there is the odd coincidence that President Trump has no business connections in the nations targeted while having such business interests in the nations excluded. This might lead to an argument that stated national security interest is not the President’s genuine interest, similar to the Court’s rejection of the “racial purity” interest in Loving v. Virginia and its conclusion that the “real” interest was White Supremacy. There could be an argument that the President’s “real” interest in the EO is one of personal profit, an interest that coincides with the recently filed Emoluments Clause challenge. Or there might be an argument that the President’s “real” interest relates to Russia, an interest that would coincide with ongoing investigations into the Trump-Putin connections. Finally, there is an argument that the targeting of Muslims is based on animus and the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group, an interest that the Court has repeatedly found to not even satisfy the lowest level of scrutiny requiring a mere legitimate interest, in cases such as Moreno v. USDA (1973).

    There are certainly other issues in addition to equal protection; the just-filed ACLU complaint’s first claims rest on procedural due process, although there is also an equal protection claim. [Update here].

    Nevertheless, equality arguments will loom large in the “Muslim ban” challenges.

    1. Jack Ruby: Excellent discussion. Thanks for sharing it.

      “Assuming the Equal Protection Clause applies, the EO on its face makes classifications based on national origin and religious identity. The national origin classification is clear and by reference, the EO applies to 7 nations: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. These nations are Muslim-majority nations, and a provision of the EO regarding refugee status directs priority to ‘refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.'”

      Isn’t it amazing how well Donald Trump tries to protect us and somehow forgot to include in his ban the country of origin of the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Saudi Arabia? Peel off these layers and one sees that this ban is simple demagoguery and a violation of the following language in the ’65 Immigration and Naturalization Act:

      Section 202 was amended to read in part “(a) No person shall . . . be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his . . . nationality, or place of residence, except as specifically provided in section 101(a)(27), section 201(b), and section 203.” These excepting sections do not apply to immigration from specific countries outside North, Central and South America.

      While Wick Ho and Korematsu were wonderful historical reads, it escapes me why anyone thinks they’re relevant when the ’65 Immigration and Naturalization Act’s material provision doesn’t appear either facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied. Perhaps one of the constitutional scholars on the list or even Cicero might assist here?

  2. Silence from the professor while court orders are being ignored by the executive branch.

    1. JT never advocated ignoring a court order. No lawyer would but as for the efficacy of this order, it’s pure left wing politics. A nationwide stay is a bit much even of this judge.

      1. Cicero, so how do you get around the stay in that federal court’s judicial district, knowing Trump’s violated Section 202 of the Hart-Celler Act?

          1. mespo, you must finally have the answer, although it took you most of the day, but I’m in dire anticipation of what it might be. A little late but better than never.

            Here’s the question: 8 USC section 1152(a)(1)(A) prevents discrimination based on national origin or place of residence. How does section 1187(a)(12) supersede it such that Trump can lawfully ban emigration from Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc., as Ralph Adamo seems to think?

            1. I’m not going to keep teaching you legal analysis but I’ll give you a hint that took me about 4 minutes to ascertain after reading both, You obviously don’t understand the reason for the proscription in the 1965 Act as opposed to the purpose and legal basis of Trump’s executive order. They are not mutually exclusive. Once you understand that distinction you’ll understand the error in your thinking. Do I have to lead you by the hand?

              1. You might also want to look at Jimmy Carter’s barring Iranian immigration in 1980 which around here we consider after 1965. No cries of discrimination then. That why the purpose of the temporary ban is important. There were also statutory changes after 1965 were Congress itself authorized place of residency discrimination in visa waivers. Ok, there is your homework.

              2. mespo: “They are not mutually exclusive.” That’s the question of the day. 1152(a)1(A) provides its exceptions, and I would think Congress would have provided language which I haven’t found in 1187 to indicate how 1187 controls when the President decides to ban immigration based on country of nationality or residence.

                You can argue that nationality or residence wasn’t the basis for the order, and that a threat from those countries requiring extraordinary vetting was, but lawyers try to make night look like day and 1152(a)(1)(A) clearly indicates that where someone emigrates from cannot be a basis.

                Precedent in this regard seems to me a weak argument. It’s like Hillary Clinton arguing Colin Powell did used a private server, too, and then having an AG chime in that no US Attorney he knows would prosecute her.

                And if you would, please cut with the hyperbole. It’s juvenile. I’m trying to enjoy myself here and learn at the same time. If my thoughts grate on your sensibilities, then ignore me.

                  1. Thanks. I’ll check it out again, but with my first review at it I didn’t find any waiver that would have applied to 1152(a)(1)A). From the New York petition after the due process and equal protection arguments:

                    “Further, the INA forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person’s race,
                    nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). This section
                    establishes a non-discrimination principle that extends to the agency’s processing of applicants
                    for entry at the border. Were this not so, this section would have no practical effect, since CBP
                    could simply deny entry to individuals based on the above prohibited characteristics to
                    individuals whom DHS had otherwise duly issued a visa. Respondents’ detention and
                    mistreatment of Petitioners and other members of the proposed class, despite their possession of
                    valid entry documents, is therefore contrary to the INA and in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). “

  3. I am confused, CNN has credibility problems. Does not Briebart have credibility problems? Or is this slanted reporting, ok with you? Turley was reported from the Brietbary spot.

    Now, Turley appears on CNN and they have a credibility problem. If you say so!

  4. We don’t have a radical Islam-terrorist problem; we have a pressure cooker, AR-15, knife, vehicle problem. Trump’s EO unfairly targets people that might actually hate western culture by focusing on where they could possibly have become radicalized. He should instead target their typical weapon of choice. This way Trump will effectively eliminate the threat posed by these weapons and leave these evil people free to assimilate into our western culture.

  5. It is certainly a problem when people get stranded at the airport. I think he should have given at least a 24 hour cushion to enable travelers in route to complete their journey.

    Years ago, a terrorist hit on our soil was unthinkable. I remember thinking how lucky we were that we’re not like Israel, under attack on a daily basis. But now we’ve even become jaded to that. We’ve had 9/11, Fort Hood, those beheadings in OK, airport shootings, San Berdu, etc. We’ve learned about the most hideous atrocities committed by ISIS. We’ve even become used to that. I assume the trend will continue, which means that there is a real and present danger of terrorism on our soil, as well as abroad against the West and our citizens overseas. Which means that our government has the responsibility to protect us over and above any other nation. How many people were outraged after 9/11 happened, asking how we could have let this happen? Well, there are going to continue to be more terrorist attacks on our soil. In the future, we are going to wonder how we let this happen. This is that moment back in time when the decisions we make affect our security, as well as protect or erode our Constitution. So we’d better choose wisely and correct any mistakes we may make along the way.

    Ralph Adamo – thanks for the information. I think they should expand the countries that get extreme vetting. In fact, my concern is that terrorists will merely use another country as a go between. One of the most violently anti-semitic men I ever met was a Persian who immigrated illegally across the Mexican border after flying out of Turkey. He said he’d gotten caught later and smoothed it all out because his wife was a legal immigrant.

    If someone cannot prove their identity, then they had better convince the asylum department that they are not a risk. If they cannot, then they cannot get entry. One single Syrian kid killed by Assad is too many. One single American kid, of any ethnicity, killed by a terrorist attack is too many. So figure it out, but safety before politics.

        1. Oh Boy! Millenial twits can go out and pretend they are Freedom Riders! Oh yeah!

          And what are Muslims, exactly? A group that marginalizes women, hate Jews, and abhor gays! In other words, the exact thing that Trump supporters are accused of being. What a farce!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. SQUEEK!
            “And what are Muslims, exactly? A group that marginalizes women, hate Jews, and abhor gays! In other words, the exact thing that Trump supporters are accused of being. What a farce!”

            You should frame that one.
            What a moment of pure clarity.
            Ten thumbs up my dear.

  7. The Korematsu decision of the Supreme Court back in WWII is the case to review here. The Court approved the rounding up of American citizens of Jap ancestry and putting them in concentration camps.
    Coming soon to a theatre near you. As it should.

  8. And the funny thing is that President Trump is pretty much saying the same thing that Clinton did years ago when he was president. The huge difference, of course, is that President Trump is also a man of action:

    1. President Trump saying the same thing Clinton did is a justification??? I might see something along the lines of, “Two scoundrels happened to say the same thing AND it is worth paying attention to; proof that wonders never cease!”, but not that Trump is in any way shape or form legitimized by virtue of repetition of Clinton, Crook In Chief of the 90’s.

      1. You are ignoring the fact that the Clintons are the DARLINGS of the leftists and Elite Establishment. They liked the talk then because it was just talk. The difference is that Trump is man of action.

  9. Importantly, JT as well as all the mainstream media presstitutes FAIL to disclose the facts and the truth behind President Trump’s Executive Order. According to JT and the rest of the presstitutes, Trump singled out the nations subject to his immigration vetting.

    However, the facts and the truth are completely different. If you simply apply my IronClad Rule, or Adamo’s Rule, you cannot go wrong: If the Mainstream Media Pressitutes are telling you something, it is going to be involve an omission which renders their statements false and misleading, a distortion of the truth, a fabrication, or an outright lie. This Rule works 100% of the time because LYING to the public is the intent of the mainstream media presstitutes and they are highly skilled at it.

    Thus, as it turns out, President Trump is merely carrying out an executive action in support of the US Customs and Border Protection Act of 2015, which relates to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. President Trump did NOT select seven countries – the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries!

    Nowhere in President Trump’s executive order does he single out any country for VISA suspension. Instead, what his Executive Order does is say he’s suspending visa approvals from countries ALREADY outlined by the Obama administration as representing a specific threat such that they were categorized for extreme visa vetting by: 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).

    Of course, you won’t learn these facts from the mainstream media presstitutes. And JT certainly isn’t going to tell you the truth either. Lefttists have a vested interest in their lies, and they hate the truth and the facts in any event. The truth and the facts make presstitutes violently ill. So, you will have to do your research on your own if you want to know the truth. But please, whatever you do, remember Adamo’s IronClad Rule about what the presstitutes tell you. They’re not called presstitutes for nothing. They are all dedicated liars and nothing more.

    1. Your point that the MSM lies 100% of the time has so much merit (they occasionally let a bit of truth slip through the cracks – but one almost wonders if it’s just to tease us) that indeed, it is worth additional research. (subject to that, my rant above still stands).

      For the same reason, I have come back from my initial impression of the futility, even the harm, of focusing so much on attendance numbers or viewer numbers involved in the Inauguration. Perhaps those pictures were right, I still suspect they were right, but perhaps not. This IS the media. All-they-do-is-lie.

  10. There will always be meddling by activist leftist judges attempting to force their leftist policies on America. That is why the leftists politicians put the activist leftist judges on the bench in the first place. They don’t care what the law is or what the facts are. They have only their “higher” leftist agenda to comply with.

    As a result, the judge’s leftist order will need to be reviewed by a higher court.

    Unfortunately, the American people will only wake up to the dangers of leftist judges when one of the individuals they let in from one of the watch-list nations on the Trump list goes on a rampage killing Americans. Of course, when that happens, the maninstream media presstitutes will attemp to do damage control by claiming it was a wild coincidence and the murderer was “insane.”

    But nothing inflames the American public like a phony judicial system that lets criminals out on the streets to commit heinous crimes. When that event happens, and it eventually will, the American people will ultimately demand reversals of the leftist judges and they will occur just as fast as leftist judge Donnelly’s leftist order was put into effect, i.e., within hours.

    1. http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/29/14430082/four-federal-courts-ruled-trump-immigration-ban

      “In the last 24 hours, four federal courts have ruled on Trump’s immigration ban

      Last night, a Federal District court issued an emergency stay on deportations for passengers affected by President Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry to the US from seven majority-Muslim countries. Since that first decision, three other courts have issued their own rulings, putting a halt to deportations for those detained at airports across the country.”

      1. We wouldn’t see this in Russia. Apparently, the Right has decided we need to be more like Putin or for that matter like good Saudis and keep our collective thoughts to ourselves, lest our tongues be removed.

        Trump’s going to be called out at every turn. I’m elated with the response.

        Trump should be impeached for this Executive Order.

      2. You are a poorly informed liberal… there was only a stay… and I would suggest you read 8 US Code 1182 (2001) and that is the law in which Trump made his executive order… and when conservative lawyers get done with the hearing, it most likely will have to go to the Supreme Court for a ruling and the ACLU will learn it is no longer permissible to go around the laws of the land by using liberal case law decisions.

        1. Helms: Which part of 8 USC 1182? I don’t see anything in it that supersedes 8 USC 1151(a)(1)(A)’s “no person shall . . . 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.”

          Enquiring minds . . .

          1. Cicero, perhaps you could chime in on which part of 8 USC 1182 applies to a blanket immigration ban against anyone and everyone from those seven countries named in the Executive Order?

      3. Anthony Spicusa – I told everybody early on that they were judge shopping. Interesting they were able to find 4 federal judges on a Saturday night. Just so everyone know, George Soros is picking up the tab.

  11. Joy-Ann, Thank You Chic Voters, Reid,finished her show today liking Steve Bannon to Rasputin. Now isn’t that mature.
    Progressives don’t need petty little girl snark like that.
    Harvard educated ditz go away.
    Actually, please do quit your day job.

    1. Reid is on the right track. Bannon and Steven Miller are essentially the unelected leaders of this country. For Bannon to replace the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is insane. It may be time for Section 4 of the 25th Amendement.

      1. Was Hillary Clinton elected or reviewed by the Senate when she was first lady?

        Name one senior white house advisor that has been elected to that position EVER.

        Reid is not on the right track, she’s a sore loser and a pathetic petulant courtesan who had her future position of entitlement in the HRC elite media taken away from her.

  12. Turley I would like to reconcile the EO with the constitution. This clearly is a violation of the establishment clause..

    (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

    1. This clearly is a violation of the establishment clause..

      [Chuckles]. More daisy chains from the law professoriate.

        1. Ha ha ha. Laurence Tribe might have said that without guilt.

          My favorite example of daisy chain was an article which appeared about 10 years ago in Law and Contemporary Problems which argued that hunting should be outlawed via judicial ukase. A great deal of blather about ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’ distinctions in law, equal protection etc. The subtext was ‘Prof. X does not hunt, and does not know anyone who does’.

  13. For the history buffs. Remember FBI sting operation ABSCAM

    ABSCAM—was a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sting operation that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The two-year investigation was directed from the FBI’s office in Hauppauge, New York, and was under the supervision of Assistant Director Neil J. Welch, who headed the bureau’s New York division, and Thomas P. Puccio, head of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Strike Force for the Eastern District of New York.

    The operation initially targeted trafficking in stolen property and corruption of prestigious businessmen, but was later converted to a public corruption investigation. The FBI, aided by the Justice Department and a convicted con-man, videotaped politicians accepting bribes from a fraudulent Arabian company in return for various political favors.

    More than 30 political figures were investigated and among those a total of seven Congressmen — six members of the United States House of Representatives and one United States Senator — were convicted. Not only were there members of Congress, but also one member of the New Jersey State Senate, members of the Philadelphia City Council, the Mayor of Camden, New Jersey, and an inspector for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

    1. Yes, is is truly astonishing that politicians would actually turn out to be corrupt. Of course, that particular event happened many, many years ago and the fact that so many public officials were caught in acts of corruption was a wild coincidence.

      Everyone knows that politicians today would never, ever do anything corrupt. It is completely alien to their sensibilities of honor and integrity and their deep respect for the American people and their sense of fairness and justice.

  14. “Read My Lips” CNN Guest Rula Jebreal Unloads on Trump Supporter Jonathan Turley over Muslim Ban

    1. It’s about the application of the law and stare decisis.
      Professor Turley appears to be looking at this decision much more clearly than the emotional one with an extra inactive X chromosome.

      1. Romero of the ACLU disagrees with Turley also. Rula Jebreal expressed an opinion, she didn’t claim she was an attorney or that she had legal expertise.

        1. Moreover, the venue was public television, not a court of law. Jebreal was talking about real people getting badly hurt, the vast majority of whom are totally innocent of any crime or threat to the United States or its citizens. Professor Turley was talking about how from a legal point of view, such emotions and charged descriptions are not helpful. Both had valid points and both had a reasonable gripe with the other, simply from two very different points of view.

          1. Lets talk about real people getting badly hurt right here in our nation.. they should come first, and how about our troops who come home and die while waiting for medical treatment … and can’t get a home because a Syrian Refugee has first dubs, … and Brooklin Bridge, if you don’t like that fact go live in Germany like I said before… there it is their way of life to put their own country and citizens to the end of the line… and it’s not going to be that way here much longer…

            1. Read the civility rule. God created the scroll bar just for you; if you don’t like what you’re reading, use it.

        2. Correct. But Romero was reasonably arguing the merits of the ACLU’s case. RJ just exploded into a rant of bombastic tripe. She was presented as an “Foreign Policy Analyst”. I’ll adjust my expectations for those credentials going forward.

        3. I have lots of opinions on Ferraris. Never been in one or worked on one but I’ve got loads of opinions about them. Are you interested in any of them?

  15. Regarding Turley’s appearance on GPS, Turley certainly received a drubbing from the Muslim woman who was stuck in Italy because of this immigration ban. She told Turley some things that needed to be said to him for quite sometime. I’m betting even his Chicago relatives might agree. My bet is on Anthony Romero of the ACLU.

        1. Exactly right! Blah blah blah white supremacy blah blah blah Trump is Hitler blah blah blah white supremacy blah blah blah Steve Bannon sucks blah blah blah Holocaust blah blah blah..

          Typical liberal claptrap. Does China accept Muslim refugees??? Hell no, and they certainly ain’t “white supremacists.”

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

      2. An excellent link. This brings out the tragic fact that no matter how appropriate the discussion on immigration is, this particular order is causing real harm to real people, many of whom are innocent of any crime, committed or intended. That Democrats have done the same in the past simply doesn’t excuse anything. Many so called “leftists” on this site have just participated in ripping a new one for the Dem party and anyway, this is about Trump and his Presidential Order. To say Trump is starting a worthwhile discussion is akin to starting a large apartment building on fire to have a discussion about the building’s sprinkler system.

        I happen to agree with professor Turley, that on the judicial level, at least, passions are not what will resolve the issue and name calling is not helpful. But on the human level, and that is the level that is playing out at the borders such as at airports, etc., it is a different story altogether (as I suspect Professor Turley is quite aware) and it is quite understandable that Rula Jebreala, the journalist in the above video, would be impassioned on the subject. From what I have read of Turley’s posts, I also suspect he is deeply sympathetic to the plight of those innocents caught up in this order.

        That said, Ms. Jebreala’s impassioned statement is compelling. As Turley himself points out in this post, President Trump’s subsequent remarks about favoring Christians are not helpful to the argument that this is not about Muslims. Also Ms. Jebreala also points out, the order has inconsistencies in terms of being for national security. Why indeed are not the countries involved in 9/11 on the list if this is about national security? Why are some Muslim countries where Trump has business interests not on the list? Also, as she points out, many Muslims who have risked their lives to help Americans ARE also on this list do to it’s blunt reach. Such a cruelly blunt instrument seems almost designed to inspire people in those places affected if not in the whole region to revisit the idea of participation in extremest organizations.

        9/11 happened 15 years ago. Isn’t this carrying the security threat posed a bit to the extreme?

        What IS the risk of an American being harmed by a terrorist act? What is this National Security risk that requires such sudden almost war time preparation? According to most assessments, statistically, the risk of an American or European, of being hurt by a terrorist act is considerably less that the chance of their being struck by lightning. Far FAR less chance of getting hurt by a terrorist than that of getting killed by a car when crossing the street. Those numbers can easily be checked. They are non partisan. They use rational argument backed up by statistical evidence to pose a rational question: How does such a minimal risk warrant almost war like preparation so harmful to so many innocent to protect ourselves?

        Now, on the subject of things that might be worth Presidential Orders for our national protection, what about Man Made Global Warming?

        Many scientists claim we have a very high chance of great to catastrophic harm caused to large swaths of the United States by sea rise, ocean acidification, and other weather related phenomenon due directly to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Possibly all these scientists are lying. Possibly none of them agree with each other. Possibly the oil magnates who’s very existence depends on denying man made climate change has merit. But we are talking about risk here. Is the risk of 90+% of scientists actually agreeing about the extreme danger of climate change to almost the entire population of the United States less than that of being struck by lightening? If it’s just a question of national risk, then isn’t man made climate change worth at least as much of a hullabaloo as this Presidential Order on immigrants?

        1. From The Intercept, a non MSM news outlet whose posts on Clinton and DNC corruption helped Trump to get elected,

          The administration’s assault on civil liberties explicitly targeted the world’s most vulnerable populations — [including but not limited to] refugees and asylum seekers fleeing devastating wars — as well as young people with student visas pursuing an education in the United States, green card holders with deep roots in the country, and a number of citizens of countries not included in the ban. It also impacted American children traveling with, or waiting to meet, their non-citizen parents.

          https://theintercept.com/2017/01/29/trumps-muslim-ban-triggers-chaos-heartbreak-and-resistance/

        2. You just justified the ban … many people … many Muslims who (by the way cannot) be vetted… eventhough we have a great vetting process, but it can only be effective if the ‘many people’ can be vetted… you have no way of knowing how many of those people are potential harm to the life and security of the American people, and as for your fake number of 90+ scientists agreeing… that is 90+% of those either with the UN or the Obama, and liberal backers… who agree that Man Made climate change is the extreme danger. so take your liberal BS somewhere else… like maybe Germany… you would like it there… try reading the law that Obama failed to read… 8 US Code ss 1182 .. on immigration

          1. What you don’t like is fake. What you do is real. Can’t be bothered.

        3. “This brings out the tragic fact that no matter how appropriate the discussion on immigration is, this particular order is causing real harm to real people, many of whom are innocent of any crime, committed or intended.”
          ***********************

          The same is true in the absence of such an order. The question is: how many American lives are you willing to risk to make you feel better about yourself? Judging by your comments, quite a few. Think dirty bomb.

          1. This dirty bomb would come from the countries that were involved in 9/11? Because, just a reminder, they are NOT even on the list. You ask for reason, and then ignore it.

            Your chance of dying by terrorist attack is 1 in 20 million. You use the usual dirty tricks of holding me hostage as someone who would willingly put American lives at risk, simply because I don;t agree with you, when in reality the odds are so utterly and absurdly low in the first place and the countries that are most likely to actually try something aren’t even on the list.

            Why, for instance, are you putting American lives at risk by not insisting that the Government spend the same amount on avoiding traffic accidents? You have 2500 more chances of dying by a car accident than by a terrorist act. Why don’t we put 7 trillion dollars (times 2500) over the next ten years into a war on traffic accidents? What sort of monster are you? I’ll tell you why and at the same time why only someone playing dirty pool would call you a monster. Because there is always a point at which additional cost does not decrease risk and it has NOTHING to do with one’s patriotism or willingness to put lives at risk.

            .

      3. CNN continues to have a credibility problem and having guests such as Rula Jebreal is not helpful. Professor Turley is quite correct in twice stating that she proved his point. She is introduced as a foreign policy analyst yet how objective is her data when she resorts to a form of communication that diminishes her message and shows that she is not open to another point of view? Being closed to certain types of information is a folly practice for anyone claiming to be an analyst.

        1. “CNN continues to have a credibility problem.” LOL. That is akin to saying that “Omar Mateen went a little bit overboard in his rant against infidels.”

      4. Anything by Rula Jebreal is going to leftist, pro-Islamoterrorist drivel. 100% Guaranteed.

      5. Rla Jabreal is a leftist, pro-Islamoterrorist-lover. Anything she says is leftist propaganda drivel. 100% guaranteed.

      6. Nothing quite as pathetic as an emotional foreigner lecturing America on American values. Stay in sinking Europe. You deserve each other.

  16. Unfortunately you will not have the 9-11 truth for another 4 years. Obamas Executive Order voided Bushs almost lifetime denial of presidential notes, where the incumbent and ex-president had to agree to release the presidential notes.

  17. What is a leftist judge?

    Now in the mix is Massachusetts and D.C. That have stayed the immigration ban. Still counting.

  19. The most leftist President ever rounded up all Japanese-Americans and interred them. It was war. It was wrong, but at least FDR realized it was war and the only rule in war is the Al Davis rule, “Just win, baby!” I grew up in a street fighting town and it’s the same rule for that basic battle as well.

    1. And I bet you never made the effort to read the declassified report on Pearl Harbor either. As far as you’re concerned p, the US was the bad guy in your little brainwashed mind. Read the report and we’ll talk.

      1. sherry, You might be wrong in your analysis of my thinking. In retrospect it was wrong. One of the most conservative Presidents signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 making reparations to hundreds of thousands of Japanese that were interred. But I am a former history teacher. I know one must look @ events from the perspective of when they occurred before judging decades, centuries, afterwards.

  20. Actually this is all Hollywood’s fault. Making movies & always portraying Muslims as evil terrorists. Here’s True Lies “You’re Fired”. Muslim goes for a joy ride on missile.

      1. I knew the Muslim Brotherhood leaders when they were students at UC Davis in 1973. This whole thing was a construct. Congress investigated the whole plot in 1963 and instituted a ban on weapons sales to Egyot, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. If you really want to do your homework, go pull the 88th Congress Index and look under subheading Middle East. There are hundreds of pages of stuff for you to read. Do your research. Summary, Hitlers troops regrouped in Cairo in 1946, and converted to Islam in order to fool the US. The plan was to restore Germany to power, which worked out pretty well, until I found the hearings and records and told the FBI. Bunch of hack lawyers …….try reading the records for a change

        1. you might have know a subset of Muslim Brotherhoods ‘leaders’ in the making but I doubt it.

          the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928

Comments are closed.