The Trump Administration has maintained that the new executive order on refugees is not a Muslim ban. It is a compelling argument given the fact that only seven Muslim countries are singled out. Yet, Administration lawyers will have to deal with countervailing statements from President Trump that he wants to give preference to Christians as refugees. Now Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), a close confidant to President Trump, may have magnified the problems with an interview where he discusses how President Trump asked him to craft “Muslim ban.”
Guiliani told Fox News that Trump told him that he wanted to enact a “Muslim ban” and turned to him to help: “When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban. He called me up and said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”
Giuliani formed a “commission” of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and others. Guiliani said that they decided that the legal way was to “focus[]] on ― instead of religion ― danger . . . The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis ― perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
The interview is yet another headaches for Administration officials and an unexpected boon for challengers of the law. Here is Guiliani publicly stating that Trump really did want a Muslim ban when he asked for the order to be legally drafted. Usually confidants of a president studiously avoided disclosing such communications, particularly when it clearly undermines the legal position of the president.
In fairness to Guiliani, he was trying to explain that, despite the initial reference to a Muslim ban, the commission chose to focus not on the dominant religion but the inherent danger of certain counties. However, he has giving an added source for the alleged motivation behind the order for those who say that the order is little more than thinly veiled religious ban,
In the end, neither the Trump nor Guiliani comments should be determinative in the analysis of the ACLU challenge. The Court will analyze the order according to the justification advanced by the Administration as it did in 1972 in Kleindienst v. Mandel. In that case, the Court voted 6-3 to uphold a refusal to allow a marxist Belgian scholar to enter the U.S. to give a series of lectures. It was an abusive and wrong decision by the Administration in my view but the Court did not get into the wisdom but the constitutionality of the decision. While the court affirmed that it could review such decisions, it also held that it was enough that the government based the decision to exclude Mandel on reasons that were “facially legitimate and bona fide.”
Thus, the public statements will likely be cited by the challengers but the standard remains highly forgiving to the President and his executive order.
DDT began his campaign using lies and exaggerations as the format. Soon just about everyone became inured to the bluster, the exaggerations, the lies. One even stopped differentiating between fact and fiction. DDT’s tactics worked. America elected the most pathological and prolific liar ever to mount a podium, to the White House. So why should he change?
The scary part is that DDT has added to this tactic totally bizarre manifestations of fear and loathing that appear to rev up the mentally unbalanced. White, fascist, racist, bigoted extremists are attacking Muslim airline workers, shooting innocents in Quebec, and generally coming out from under their rocks.
DDT is certainly unifying, but unifying what, the scum of America.
He certainly has unified the leftist “scum.”
Isaac,
I think you should continue to make every effort to deflect from the fact that the shooting happened in Canada.
tnash
Canada is not without it supply of cockroaches. The shooting occurred in Canada but the problem is world wide. The problem is tarring all with one brush. The problem is the simplistic and mindless manner in which some people are forced, by their limitations-social, mental, whatever, to be unable to differentiate between pure thuggery and people’s beliefs. The hypocrisy, fear mongering, and basic lies have a spokesman and he is President of the US. Look for an up tick this sort of behavior as the cockroaches applaud their champion in the White House. America’s shame has been eclipsed. The three stooges were disgusting, incompetent, and caused the greatest recession since the Great Depression-fact. This mutt, in his first two weeks, has eclipsed them.
By the way, you must be one of the smarter ones. You spelled Canada correctly. However, you missed my mention of Quebec. Being one of the smarter ones you surely must know Quebec is in Canada. Perhaps not.
issac – I, personally, do not consider Quebec to be part of Canada. Like California, Quebec should secede or the rest of Canada should throw their asses out. One or the other.
Isaac,
I noticed that virtually all of your posts have a singular, repetitive theme.
tnash,
Forgive issac, it seems based on his last post the letter “J” is missing from his keyboard; which might explain why obJectivity is missing from his posts. Just pull the string and you know what he’ll say.
Isaac,
I did know that Quebec is in Canada.
From the themes of your posts, I wasn’t sure if you knew that.
tnash- The Canadian is a very hateful and angry person. He usually calls Trump supporters “Mindless” now it’s “cockroach”. He has this obsession with President Trump hence the DDT label. If you read his posts they are always, always the same, just rants against President Trump and how “mindless” the electorate was in voting for President Trump. President Trump, did I get that right Isaac?
Canadian by birth and American by choice, both. The difference here is that a lot of thinking went into becoming an American. I do believe in this country’s future. However, having been exposed to different cultures and countries, I do also believe that this country has become extremely dysfunctional, a choice between us or them, the next step is a dictatorship.
Regarding ranting and raving, it seems to be the main theme of this blog. But, again in this country of us or them, one person’s opinion if it is not yours is ranting and meaningless drivel if it is yours, is erudite. I vent my spleen as do most others here. As well, more often than not, my posts are responded to by extremely biased drivel. It seems most need to vent.
Regarding DDT and those who voted for him, if one takes the time to remember, there has never been a President elected based so entirely on hate, lies, exaggeration, and pure mob mentality. DDT may be President and he may not do as much damage as is feared; he may do some good. However, he was not elected as an intelligent and knowledgable person, but as a mob organizer of the worst sort.
I like to always have a macro view in my head when analyzing. The macro view is we often elect the opposite President from the previous one. Much of the hyperventilation from the MSM and left is akin to when this country elected the opposite of Jimmy Carter in 1980. But, Al Gore had not yet invented the internet. That is the only variable that has increased the mania, on both sides.
I don’t know if this matters or not, but here is what a 7th Circuit Appellate Court Judge wrote in an opinion handed down in October, 2016:
“I write separately for a second, critical reason, which is my concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country. It is possible that our case bears a direct link to this enigma.
It is well‐documented that refugees to the United States are not representative of that war‐torn area of the world. Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one‐half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian.1 Recognizing the crisis in Syria, the President in 2015 set a goal of resettling 10,000 refugees in the United States. And in August the government reached this laudable goal. And yet, of the nearly 11,000 refugees admitted by mid‐September, only 56 were Christian. To date, there has not been a good explanation for
this perplexing discrepancy.”
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D10-21/C:16-1840:J:Manion:con:T:fnOp:N:1849740:S:0
Why we should all be outraged Muslims are so tolerant of other religions!
“‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”
Of course those that oppose Trump because he continues to breath oxygen cringe when this sort of statement is made by Trump. The lefties have painted Trump as a dictator, a totalitarian, a tyrant after 1 week in office and this tyrant has asked an advisor to show him how to do something LEGALLY. Apparently Trump didn’t get the memo on the “I’m constitutionally the smartest guy in the room and I have a pen and a phone”, on how to be a tyrant.
The previous administration has so mucked up the immigration policy that Trump would do well to freeze all immigration/refugee intake until they sort out the process. If he cannot ban people from countries based on the religion they use as justification to kill westerners, then ban people from countries that follow law they use as justification to kill westerners.
If you think about this rationally, shouldn’t we demand whoever is President to do everything possible to secure the safety and happiness of our citizens AND follow the law in the process? Had Obama done EXACTLY what Trump is doing, he would have bipartisan support.
Trump might be in a better position if he had not used such inflammatory rhetoric to secure the republican nomination and to beat Clinton. He pretty much said he was coming for Muslims and Mexicans and now he is.
joe,
Every politician “pretty much” says anything when campaigning. Once they get into office we are to measure that “pretty much” rhetoric by the limits of the office as defined by the constitution. It is a useless exercise to debate the actions of this President if we cannot agree on that point.
Can we agree this President or any President of this country should do everything within their constitutional limits to make our citizens secure in their life, their liberty and their property? That answer must be yes if we are to establish a baseline for debate. Should this President or any President allow an immigration policy to continue that threatens national security? Of course not. Should this President or any President conduct a review of our current immigration policy, receive recommendations to improve the vetting process and implement changes where necessary? Of course they should. Should this President or any President temporarily suspend immigration/refugee intake from countries that have proven to sponsor worldwide terrorist activities until we can establish a process that provides our citizens confidence their security comes first? Absolutely. Did the previous 5 Presidents used immigration bans for national security/foreign policy purposes? Yes.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/29/trumps-immigration-order-gives-ammunition-to-isis-endangers-u-s-troops/Most foreign policy experts think Trump is actually endangering us with actions and not keeping us safe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/republicans-congress-trump-refugees.html Bipartisan suppor tis forming against the ban not for it, Oily.
Professor Turley, thank you for always providing careful, objective constitutional analyses of today’s current issues. We need more minds like yours in the world!
Rudy, in his incessant quest for public approval, is his own worst enemy. Now he’s turning into Trump’s.
Muslim = Muslims
Obama immigrated almost exclusively Muslim (majority religion) from those countries. Somehow, Christians were not allowed in. Funny how that happened.
More leftist BS FAKE NEWS from leftist JT based on FAKE NEWS presstitutes from the Washington Compost. Giuliani NEVER said that Trump asked him how to legally do a “Muslim ban.” This presstitute lie is based entirely on a false and misleading leftist spin on a statement that Giuliani made during an interview with commentator Jeanne Pirro. The truth of the matter is that the list of nations cited for vetting was based ENTIRELY ON A LIST DEVELOPED BY THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION.
Let me repeat that for the very dense leftists, like JT:
The truth of the matter is that the list of nations cited for vetting was based ENTIRELY ON A LIST DEVELOPED BY THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION.
Given the blockheaded BS loaded leftists like JT, twice is still not enough, so I will try yet again:
The truth of the matter is that the list of nations cited for vetting was based ENTIRELY ON A LIST DEVELOPED BY THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION.
And again:
The truth of the matter is that the list of nations cited for vetting was based ENTIRELY ON A LIST DEVELOPED BY THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION.
And again, for good measure:
The truth of the matter is that the list of nations cited for vetting was based ENTIRELY ON A LIST DEVELOPED BY THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION.
Have the facts been absorbed into your pea-size BS loaded “brains,” leftists?
I doubt it, so I would suggest that all leftists read this post at least 300 times until some small dose of reality connects with what feeble synapses remain in your cerebral-deficient blockheads
You know, I just realized the problem why leftists like JT don’t understand the truth no matter how many times it’s repeated. I had assumed that JT and his fellow leftist-travelers know how to read. This is obviously a big mistake on my part. I had assumed certain capabilities that are virtually non-existent in the leftist species.
Luckily, there are other tools by which the mentally infirm can be instructed in the truth. So I’ve found a video that seems to capture some of the main points
Be sure to watch the video at least 30 times, though, as I’m sure that you leftists out there are also exceedingly slow audio-visual learners as well:
Bravo, once again, for being balanced in your analysis of the immigration ban. Yes, a ban on a religion is a bad thing, but as most lawyers do for a living, they worded the ban in suCh a way as to be LEGALLY sufficient to meet the end result. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, the restrictions are legal (8 US Code, 1182).
People forget that there is no RIGHT to come to the US. By the graciousness of our hearts, we have a very open immigration policy. But many (some) take advantage of our openness to gain access to cause harm. The number one responsibility of the President is to protect its citizens. The temporary ban highlighted an issue there is with allowing immigrants into this country. With President Trump being in office for only a week, the visas approved by the affected immigrants were reviewed by the previous Administration–and look to Europe (Germany, France, Brussels, etc.) to see the effects of a weak vetting process. These immigrants are going through a more thorough vetting process and are being admitted with better confidence that they are DESERVING the opportunity to come to the United States. What’s wrong with slowing down the process so that the policies of the new Administration can be applied to screen individuals coming from nations who want to do harm to OUR country. Even the 9-11 terrorists were allowed in this country under President Bill Clinton’s watch.
As great as the danger is of admitting Islamist terrorists from battleground countries, the OTHER danger for us living in Europe which you Americans should try to avoid is this: Admitting hundreds of thousands of MIGRANTS who have no knowledge of any of the European languages, are fundamentally illiterate, are frequently diseased, have no skills and a culture that has nothing to do with our own. With migrants who are adults, you are starting at ‘ground zero’. Our experience here with refugees following the Bosnian War demonstrates that assimilation of adults is long and difficult. We are in deep trouble here in Europe over the issue accepting the recent migrants in addition to REAL REFUGEES who are fleeing for their lives, especially Christians and Jews, but also Muslim families with small children. We of course feel morally bound to accept the real refugees. But, the difference between a refugee and a migrant takes time and a lot of our own resources to discern.
Given what we have seen and are witnessing daily here in Europe, Trump is doing the right things for the USA except for two details, in my opinion: (1) persons in transit who were allowed on their flights with legitimate documentation before the order was signed and implemented should be admitted and subsequently processed; (2) persons with legitimate US green cards who obviously have gone through a thorough vetting process should be admitted.
Arnold Falk
Switzerland
Kakistocracy at work.
Reblogged this on O LADO ESCURO DA LUA.
Should the immigration laws and policies of countries that the U.S. government says are our allies – be taken into consideration? Mexico, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, and many others.
Seven countries who are overwhelmingly Muslim but some may not be Islamic and how are you NOT going to focus on one culture or religion? The odds of it becoming a ban therefore focused on one religion which is also at the same time a government range from impossible to ridiculous.
Writing a ban that takes that into account and the dictates of our own culture becomes rather important. As far as the leftwing extremists are concerned they are ready and able to show up tomorrow for a protest on Hi Ho’s And Ding Dongs.
That impedimenta should not stop the process of having the immigracion system stopped, checked and brought into agreement with our culture and laws after being swamp dipped in the mystic whims of secular regressivism where the rule of law was routinely ignored.
The Judge seems to be doing this and the only thing blocking the process are Carville’s Clonette Collectives with their passe 60’s childishness.
The logic is beyond flawed. No one knows the intention of any immigrant from any country — nor can extreme-vetting decipher lying, particularly if a person has a clean record.
So the US should shut down all immigration, from all countries, if it truly wants to be “safe.”
During the campaign, didn’t some kid from England seek to harm the orange Steak-Salesman? Crazy comes from everywhere.
I agree crazy comes from everywhere but the Administration has a duty to do its best to protect the country.
A moratorium to come up with better screening procedures is not a crazy idea. Your logic suggests that since police can’t prevent all crime we shouldn’t bother having them.
Police require probable cause. They don’t stop everyone they see.
And to clarify, my point was that if better screening is the goal, it should apply to all countries and not just seven.
Your probable cause it you come from a country the germinates terrorists.
“is” not “it”
Rudy Giuliani used wrong wirds. People already in an inappropriate uproar. So his statement won’t make a difference. Everything he is doing is legal and reasonable. And for each family that CNN reports there are issues at the airports one can way that against potential harm, death terrorist act. This is all temporary anyway. But MSM and dems are blowing it up.
If Giuliani had never said this, the Left would still be presenting this as a Muslim ban. Reality does not matter when one is race-baiting or religion baiting, whatever.
Does anybody really think that the Democrats aren’t going to play the race card every chance they get??? Or the religion baiting card, whichever. It’s the only card in the deck, and its a Joker, and it can be the sexist card, or racist card, or homophobe card, whatever it needs to be.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Although I understand your contention on constitutional grounds, I hope you and all will take note of this:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/immigration-ban-stories/