Category Archives: Immigration
A Hawaiian judge helped President Trump find the true meaning of his travel ban. Trump thought he was was using his legal authority as president to keep out perceived threats to the United States.
The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:
“(f) 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.”
In this case he said he needed time to vet refugees from jihad torn countries to make sure they aren’t jihadists.
U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson – a Harvard classmate appointed by President Obama – says otherwise. The judge ruled Trump’s real intent was to keep out Muslims. The judge knows this because Trump said so in campaign speeches.
Finally, a Democrat who doesn’t think Trump lies.
Apparently Sally Yates is just another protester resisting the Trump presidency. Except that she’s the Acting Attorney General. Or was. President Trump fired her when she refused to carry out his immigration law revisions.
Sally Yates Profile
Senator Chuck Schumer immediately tried to compare the firing to Nixon’s Saturday night massacre. The wily crying senator even worked in a Kennedy allusion, calling Yates “a profile in courage”. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz was having none of it. He said, “Yates was an Obama holdover who made a serious mistake by making a political decision rather than a legal one.”
Carl M. Cannon in Real Clear Politics says Yates is more a “profile in partisanship.” He says that Yates “shouldn’t still be in that job at the Department of Justice. Jeff Sessions should be, and Chuck Schumer is the reason he’s not.”
CNN says Hillary Clinton won the debate. Donald Trump disagrees but most other polls aren’t backing him up, so far.
Trump seemed to get the best of Hillary in the first 30 minutes when they tangled over trade rules. He caught her on the wrong side of President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Trade Deal, pointing out that she had called it the “gold standard.” Hillary denied this and then replied it wasn’t her responsibility and that she had changed her mind. So Trump insisted that she say it was Obama’s fault:
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it’s the finest deal you’ve ever seen.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are — I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated…
CLINTON: … which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn’t. I wrote about that in my book…
TRUMP: So is it President Obama’s fault?
CLINTON: … before you even announced.
TRUMP: Is it President Obama’s fault?
CLINTON: Look, there are differences…
TRUMP: Secretary, is it President Obama’s fault?
CLINTON: There are…
TRUMP: Because he’s pushing it.
CLINTON: There are different views about what’s good for our country, our economy, and our leadership in the world. And I think it’s important to look at what we need to do to get the economy going again. That’s why I said new jobs with rising incomes, investments, not in more tax cuts that would add $5 trillion to the debt.
At that point Trump seemed to be mopping the floor with her. But Hillary quickly got under his skin by trashing his business acumen and ethics.
She took a page from the Harry Reid playbook to claim Trump doesn’t pay income taxes. Incredibly, The Donald seemed to agree by saying, “it makes me smart.” For the record, PolitiFact doesn’t agree. It rates her claim mostly false.
But after that Trump seemed Low Eenergy.
Elephant In Debate Room
The elephant in debate room was the fact that Immigration, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation didn’t make the cut. Those issues were never brought up by moderator Lester Holt or Trump.
Unburdened of that baggage, Hillary dragged her prey off into the tall grass. There she dismembered the small handed one with accusations of racism and sexism.
She claimed the Stop and Frisk law was ruled unconstitutional and moderator Holt backed her up. She also insisted the murder rate continues to decline. In truth, Stop and Frisk was never ruled unconstitutional. And the FBI released a report the next morning showing the murder rate had surged 10.8% in 2015.
Hillary went on to back up her racism charge using Tulsa and Charlotte as “tragic examples.” Trump lacked the energy to point out that Black people rioted in Charlotte where a black man was killed by a black police officer who worked for a black police chief.
The speech was an attempt to trump Trump with the race card. She also accused The Donald of subscribing to dark conspiracy theories.
Then she played the Putin card by theorizing that Vladimir Putin is the “Godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.”
By Friday afternoon the news was focused back on the Clinton Foundation. Paul Joseph Watson has a great YouTube sendup of Hillary’s speech, tinfoil hat and all, here.
For a guy who’s all about narratives President Obama doesn’t seem to think words matter anymore.
He still refuses to use the term “radical Islam“. He says it wouldn’t make any difference. On Tuesday he angrily asked, “What exactly would it accomplish? What exactly would it change?”
The WSJ editorial board thanked him for asking and answered his question:
If the U.S. is under attack, Americans deserve to hear their President say exactly who is attacking us and why. You cannot effectively wage war, much less gauge an enemy’s strengths, without a clear idea of who you are fighting.
Mr. Obama’s refusal to speak of “radical Islam” also betrays his failure to understand the sources of Islamic State’s legitimacy and thus its allure to young Muslim men. The threat is religious and ideological.Islamic State sees itself as the vanguard of a religious movement rooted in a literalist interpretation of Islamic scriptures that it considers binding on all Muslims everywhere. A small but significant fraction of Muslims agree with that interpretation, which is why Western law enforcement agencies must pay more attention to what goes on inside mosques than in Christian Science reading rooms.
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter: ‘I have a dream,’ just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,’ just words? ‘There is nothing to fear, except fear itself,’ just words?’”