President Trump’s Travel “Ban” Executive Order, (I’d rather call it a “Pause,”) has been in limbo for over a month, because courts are trying to sort out the legalities of it all. There are some misconceptions, speculations, differences of opinion and conflicting laws that need prioritizing. I wrote another blog regarding it recently, and you can find it here.
(I can’t seem to blog at the “Speed of Trump.” This man is very ambitious, a work-aholic and there seems to be something new everyday. Sometimes bad and in my opinion, a lot of good.)
The new executive order replacing the earlier one that had the country in an uproar, was signed Monday March 6th, 2017 and is only targeting 6 countries this time. Iraq has been dropped from the list, however extra screening will be added to people leaving Iraq, to make sure nobody has ties to ISIS. Iraq has already agreed to work with the US on this matter so targeting them negatively, would be counterproductive. This order also doesn’t single out Syrian refugees for indefinite suspension, it seems to apply to all refugees and just for a 120 pause. It will not take effect until March 16th and everyone seems to be in the loop on this one with no surprises. (exec order text and memorandum text released 3-6-17)
Buried deep in the executive order is the revoking of the old one regarding this matter, because there is 48 lawsuits against it. They originally said they would fight those suits, but revoking the previous order renders those suits all moot, though it doesn’t make them go away. So now the DOJ will have to apply to all of those courts to have those cases thrown out. – via Fox New “Happening Now” Monday March 6, 2017
(It’s probably in the county’s best interest to do this, as President Trump has a very big agenda on his plate and fighting over the old executive order just takes time away from things he could be doing elsewhere.)
“Of the thousand active counter terrorism cases being lead by the FBI at this time inside the US, 300 are focused on individuals who entered the United States as refugees, and we are also told they come from countries on today’s 6 country list, and others who are outside that region”. via Fox New “Happening Now” Monday March 6, 2017
Legal permanent residence, those with visas and green cards prior to January 21st will be getting priority to stay in the US in this new executive order. It sounds like, it seems this one will be “bullet proof” legal, which can explain why it’s taken so long for it to be rewritten. It also explains for the delay in it being implemented, to give those legal permanent residents, visa holders and green card holders who need to make the necessary arrangements to do so. Info via Fox News “Happening Now” 3-6-17
In the legalities of it all, nobody seems to agree that this is not a muslim ban, even though there are many reasons to denounce that theory. One of which, NOT ALL muslims are affected, only ones that reside in the now six countries from the list. There are 40+ Muslim dominant countries around the world whom of which are not affected. Second there is no mention of a Muslim ban in the wording of the order. And lastly, EVERYONE without a valid visa or greencard before January 21, 2017 or who is not a permanent resident of the US in the countries that are forementioned are affected under the executive order, not just ones whom of which practice the Muslim religion.
The Argument of this Executive Order’s Legality
Many people feel that the reason this order is not legal is because of religious discrimination, it violates religious rights of refugees mentioned. However, shouldn’t the people already on our soil, and the ones that already have been accepted to enter our borders, have precedence over anyone overseas that has no claim to residence in the USA?
During former President Obama’s Administration, a bill was introduced that would give religious discrimination rights to possible migrants heading to the US. It’s called The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016, and it states that no immigrant can be denied admission to the USA based on their religion.
NEW BILL WOULD BAN RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN IMMIGRATION
http://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-would-ban-religious-discrimination-immigration-458722 – via News Week May 11, 2016
The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with a new section titled “Prohibition on denying admission because of religion,” which stipulates that “notwithstanding any other provision of the immigration laws, an alien may not be denied admission to the United States because of the alien’s religion or lack of religious beliefs.’’
Concerns about national security are mixing with unchecked anti-Muslim bigotry and fomenting unjust fear and scrutiny of Muslim refugees and immigrants. Sadly, that fear has led some to call for a temporary ban on Muslims immigrating to the U.S., to propose dramatically limiting the number of refugees our nation accepts, and to pursue a host of policies designed to make life difficult for Muslims in America. To close our doors to Muslim immigrants and refugees in need would betray both the First Amendment and our nation’s great history as an open and welcoming land.
Um, no. NewsWeek, you have got it all wrong. Nobody wants to ban Muslims, we want to keep RADICALS out. No one is proposing any policies to oppress Muslims either, so please stop with the fear mongering.
House Passes Upgraded International Religious Freedom Law May 18, 2016
(CNSNews.com) – The House of Representatives unanimously passed the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act Monday afternoon, which upgrades the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 giving the administration and the State Department new resources to help combat the worldwide escalation in persecution of religious minorities.
Congress Passes Bill Aimed at Addressing Worldwide Religious Persecution
December 14, 2016
(CNSNews.com) – The House Tuesday passed the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, a bill designed to “advance religious freedom globally,” following approval by the Senate last week and is now headed to the president’s desk.
The bipartisan bill, authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), aims to “advance religious freedom globally through enhanced diplomacy, training, counterterrorism, and foreign assistance efforts, and through stronger and more flexible political responses to religious freedom violations and violent extremism worldwide.”
The legislation requires that the secretary of state “establish and maintain a list of foreign individuals to whom a consular post has denied a visa on the grounds of particularly severe violations of religious freedom” or “who are subject to financial sanctions or other measures for particularly severe violations of freedom religion.”
It also would amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) requiring that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) “make publicly available, to the extent practicable, online and in official publications, lists of persons it determines are imprisoned or detained, have disappeared, been placed under house arrest, been tortured, or subjected to forced renunciations of faith for their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy by the government of a foreign country that the Commission recommends for designation as a country of particular concern for religious freedom.”
It includes a requirement of international religious freedom training for all Foreign Service Officers and also requires that the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom report directly to the secretary of state.
The bill calls for an integration of “United States international religious freedom policies and strategies into the foreign policy efforts of the United States.”
My humble opinion is that everyone should have the freedom to worship or not, in any way they want, as long as it’s not hurting anyone else, and they are not forcing anyone, to do as they do. But we should not be giving rights to people in other countries, and prioritizing these rights above those of our own National Security.
Those that are in agreement with the executive order believe that National Security comes before anything else, so this law, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, has precedence over any other, the law states: Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: 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.
(That would imply in regards to what the president deems is in the best interest of the United States of America’s National Security, that ANYTHING GOES. It’s his number one job to keep the U.S. safe. I completely agree.)
The original executive order regarding this “Travel Pause”, was implemented hastily and carelessly. There were many people inconvenienced, scared and negatively affected by it. The President should have included exemptions for those people that already had permissions to be here in the USA, such as visa holders and naturalized citizens etc. Most likely had he done that, a lot less protesting and anger would have accrued. We are told that they eventually clarified that those people were exempt and were handled, then released on a case by case basis.
Administration: Nearly 750 people subjected to travel ban after court order
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/320949-reports-nearly-750-people-affected-by-travel-ban-in-hours-after-trumps-order -via The Hill 2-23-17
The federal government said Thursday that 746 people were “detained or processed” during the 27-hour period after a federal judge blocked enforcement of part of President Trump’s travel ban.
The Justice Department on Thursday turned over a list of the names to a group of civil rights attorneys representing plaintiffs suing the Trump administration over the policy.
The lawyers agreed not to make the names public, but a cover letter from the Justice Department obtained by The Hill says “the list includes legal permanent residents.”
The list of names turned over to lawyers also includes travelers with approved refugee applications, valid visa holders and travelers from the seven countries included in the ban who were authorized to enter the U.S….
It’s not clear how many people on the list eventually gained entry into the U.S…….
“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage,” the president tweeted on Jan. 30……
The government said last week in a court filing that 44 people arriving from those seven countries were deemed inadmissible on Jan. 27 and 28, The Associated Press reported, and another 97 people were denied entry at land border ports or pre-clearance locations abroad.
The government said at the time that 24 of those people who arrived at U.S. airports and 14 stopped elsewhere were ultimately admitted.
(It was originally reported that only just over 100 people were detained by the executive order in question and the 750 were sent back to where they came from. I’m not sure what exactly the truth is on that considering I’ve seen conflicting reports from various news sources. If you can find proof of what is actually true, leave me a comment of the link, I would love to add the correct info. (Hopefully the new executive order has all these kinks ironed out now.)
The hasty implementation of the this travel executive order was said to be a “surprise to our enemies,” so not to give them time to pour into the country before it was implemented. That’s a good argument, however not a very good excuse for such a horrible cluster of a process. Considering, because of the questionable legalities, it’s done the opposite of what it was meant to do. As well as the fact that they have been taking their sweet time re-writing a new one. The new one is said to be air tight, however they don’t seem to be in a very big hurry now, since it has a delayed effective date of ten days from now. This is probably because the courts “suggested” that it violated rights of those people who are legal and who needed time to make arrangements before implementation.
Report: 1800 refugees from 7 banned nations have entered US since court lifted Trump’s “travel ban”
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/26/report-1800-refugees-from-7-banned-nations-have-entered-us-since-court-lifted-trumps-travel-ban/ via The Blaze 2-26-17
Data from the State Department recently revealed that at least 1,800 refugees from the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by President Donald Trump’s January executive order on immigration and the U.S. refugee resettlement program have entered the United States since the courts lifted the order’s major restrictions.
According to analysis from the Pew Research Center, of those 1,800 refugees, the majority came from Syria, Iraq and Somalia…..
During the first full week of Trump’s presidency (Jan. 21-27), 870 refugees from the restricted countries entered the U.S., accounting for 43% of all refugee admissions during this time. The following week, Jan. 28 to Feb. 3, refugee admissions from the seven restricted countries all but stopped after Trump’s executive order took effect (excluding two refugees from Somalia and Iraq). They then resumed shortly after the federal courts stepped in.
In all, including refugees from countries with no travel restrictions, 6,095 refugees entered the U.S. during Trump’s first month in office (Jan. 21 to Feb. 17), a period that includes the week before he issued the travel order. Among these refugees, a total of 2,778 were Muslims (46%) and 2,610 are Christians (43%).
In total, Pew found that 2,733 refugees — or 45 percent in total — that entered the U.S. during Trump’s first month in office came from one of Trump’s seven targeted Muslim-majority nations.
The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016, that was passed under former President Obama, seems very unConstitutional regarding the security of the American people. The argument that refugees from these FAILED STATE COUNTRIES are protected under our laws is one that has the potential to step on our own citizen’s civil liberties. If we honored rights to everyone around the world under our Constitution before our own people, we are heading down a very dangerous road. These countries do not have records for background checks, it’s not easy to determine who is friendly with America and who maybe is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is why we need to improve vetting for these countries and that is the whole purpose of this executive order to begin with. But who would know that after the circus that has been made out of it by the media and Sen. Democrats like Chuck Schumer. (Whom was completely on board with the whole idea just two years ago and there is video proof of him saying so. Nothing has changed since then except for the POTUS.)
Trump’s order is a balm for Christians, not a ban on Muslims
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/30/opinions/trump-travel-ban-christians-swain-opinion/index.html via CNN January 30, 2017
In the following days, mass hysteria and an onslaught of misleading news reports have falsely depicted the President’s actions as an unconstitutional ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Those who object to the order have missed both the actual content of the executive order and the fact that the seven Muslim nations most affected — Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen — were already identified when Congress passed the “Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.” This act prevented nationals of these countries from traveling to the United States without visas. Muslims from other nations like Indonesia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are not subject to Trump’s 90-day restriction. Therefore, it is not a Muslim ban.
“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”
Some people argue that restricting refugees from Syria and other terrorist sponsoring nations is heartless because many of the persons admitted are women and children. However, there is a serious problem with this argument: there are more male than female refugees. As Megan McArdle of Bloomberg highlights, Europe’s immigration statistics have shown that only 27 percent of refugees were female in 2015. Additionally, jihadists groups have increasingly used women and children to carry out attacks. Women bombers have been successful because they can get closer to their targets, as they are considered less suspicious. Thus, it makes perfect sense for our government to strongly vet all Muslim immigrants, including the women and children.
President Trump has also been condemned for signaling he will give priority to persecuted religious minorities in the Middle East, which means admitting higher numbers of Christian and Yazidi refugees fleeing beheadings, drownings, and other forms of mass torture. Some critics have mistakenly argued that religion should not be a factor in refugee admissions. However, as attorney David French points out, “Religious considerations are by law part of refugee policy. And it is entirely reasonable to give preference… to members of minority religions.”
Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, argued that it was almost impossible for a Christian refugee to escape Syria. According to Abrams, although 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, only one-half of 1 percent of the refugees admitted to the US by fall of 2016 were Christian.
THE U.S. BARS CHRISTIAN, NOT MUSLIM, REFUGEES FROM SYRIA
Via NewsWeek 9/13/16.
The United States takes refugee referrals from the U.N. refugee camps in Jordan, and there are no Christians there.
Here’s the Fox excerpt:
Experts say another reason for the lack of Christians in the makeup of the refugees is the makeup of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N.
“The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” Shea said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community, and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.”
“They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous; there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Shea said.
The solution would be to allow Christians, and other religious minorities, to apply directly for refugee status, not through the U.N. U.S. Senator Tom Cotton has introduced legislation doing just that.
Genocide of Christians by ISIL (ISIS)
The genocide of Christians by ISIL refers to the genocide of Christian minorities, within its region of control in Iraq, Syria and Libya by the Islamic extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Persecution of Christian minorities climaxed following its takeover of parts of Northern Iraq in June 2014.
According to US diplomat Alberto M. Fernandez, “While the majority of victims in the conflict raging in Syria and Iraq have been Muslims, Christians have borne a heavy burden given their small numbers.”
On February 3, 2016, the European Union recognized the persecution of Christians by Islamic State in Syria as genocide.The vote was unanimous. The United States followed suit on March 15, 2016, in declaring these atrocities as genocide. The vote was unanimous. On April 20, 2016, British Parliament voted unanimously to denounce the actions as genocide. A similar motion however failed in Canada when it was opposed by the majority of PM Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party.
Christians are being beheaded on sight, raped and tortured, because of their religion and because they won’t submit to Radical Islam. They should have precedence as well should Jews, gays, transgender, women, children, Yazidi and any other minority group/race/religion in the region, because these are the people most vulnerable. These are the people that are dealing with life or death if they don’t find safety.
Boston Judge Unblocks Trump Travel Ban, Asks “Where Does It Say Muslim Countries?”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/boston-judge-unblocks-trump-travel-ban-asks-where-does-it-say-muslim-countries – via Zero Hedge 2-3-17
“The language in Section 5 of the EO is neutral with respect to religion,
“The provisions of Section 5, however, could be invoked to give preferred refugee status to a Muslim individual in a country that is predominately Christian. Nothing in Section 5 compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”
STATE VERSUS FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION – Nov. 14, 2007
Many, but not all, state laws addressing immigration are preempted by federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so. In this context, state regulation of immigration means a state law or local ordinance that makes a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain. State laws that tangentially affect immigration, such as employment licensing laws that can be revoked for violations of federal immigration laws, are expressly permissible.
Sorry, Governors: The Decision To Let In Refugees Isn’t Really Up To You
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syrian-refugees-governors_us_564a4fbce4b08cda348a32c2 via Huffington Post 11-16-15
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution vests the federal government — and not the states — with “power over immigration, naturalization and deportation.”…..
The key statute here is the Refugee Act of 1980, as noted by ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser. That 1980 law declared it to be “the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands.” It gave the president broad power to handle an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation,” such as one involving “grave humanitarian concerns.”…..
“The decision to let a particular person into the United States or exclude them is up to the federal government,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a visiting professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law who writes extensively on immigration law. “There’s no question about that.”
“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy……
Specifically, once a refugee is cleared for admission into the United States, federal law renders his or her presence lawful, and under the 14th Amendment, the individual is protected against a blanket policy that singles out people based on national origin.
Government wants appeal of travel ban put on hold
http://q13fox.com/2017/02/25/government-wants-appeal-of-travel-ban-put-on-hold/ – via FEBRUARY 25, 2017, BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
For more than a century – literally, since 1901 – the Supreme Court has been attempting to sort out when the Constitution applies outside the borders of the nation. In a series of rulings in the first two decades of the 20th Century, now known together as the Insular Cases, the court ruled that residents of U.S. territories beyond the mainland did not enjoy all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but could expect to be protected by the most fundamental guarantees. The process of picking and choosing has continued since then, and the results have been mixed.
Islam was Banned from the USA in 1952 but You’re Not Supposed to Know It!
May 16, 2016
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization and nationality for the United States.
That Act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of aliens to the US and remains in effect today.
Among the many issues it covers, one in particular found in Chapter 2, Section 212, is the prohibition of entry into the US if the alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by force, violence or by other unconstitutional means.”
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 212 – GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or
overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other
unlawful means, is inadmissible.
INA: ACT 219 – DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION 1/
Sec. 219. (a) Designation.-
(1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-
(A) the organization is a foreign organization;
(B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) 1a/ or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and
(C) the terrorist activity 1a/ or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.
In my opinion, our citizens and the people already here in our country come first. You can’t help anyone, if you don’t help yourself first. By improving our vetting process and fixing our own procedures, it only makes us stronger and better able to help those who are coming here to make a better life and escape the horrors of religious persecution and in many cases death. However we can’t have that chaos following them and being brought here.
Some of the other concerns of the legalities and intentions of an executive order of this context from the Trump Administration include:
‘Presidential Candidate Trump’ mentioned implementation of a muslim ban during the presidential campaign. (Although I’m not completely clear about the context of it, BUT I DO KNOW that President Trump realizes the difference between a Radical Islamic Extremist and a peaceful Muslim.) I also KNOW that the reason for this executive order is for the safety of the American people not to ban Muslims. The Muslims that are affected by this order are coming from FAILED STATES, (Contries with no governments or government records of their citizens. This is why a more sound vetting process for these countries is needed.)
7 countries were not the countries that were involved in 9-11, although they were predetermined by the previous administration and are failed states with no governments. Therefore they do not keep records of citizens for background checks.
Concerns that the omitted countries may be related Concernsto business ties with the Trump brand, and that’s why they weren’t included Although just because they aren’t including them now, doesn’t mean they won’t be added in the future. The countries on the list are failed states with no governments or records of their people, so background checks are virtually impossible. Not to mention the information we have about these countries, is not necessarily all the intel that the president has on them. He is privy to much more information. . Although just because they aren’t including them now doesn’t mean they won’t be added in the future. The countries on the list are failed states with no governments or records of their people so background checks are virtually impossible.
Procedural due process claims, which guarantee that people receive advance notice and an opportunity to be heard before they are deprived of liberty or property. (Which is now fixed with this 10 day delay of the new executive order.). Which has been taken care of in the new executive order.
Chuck Schumer Agrees with the travel pause back in 2015.
Please take note of his refugee “props”. It makes me very angry when people accuse others of things they have done themselves.
Immigration explained with gumballs. We can help more people by helping them where they are rather than uprooting them and bring them here.
Other Related Stories and Reference Links:
Trump administration urges appeals court to put travel ban case on hold
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/trump-administration-urges-appeals-court-put-travel-ban-case/ via The Telegraph (UK) 2-25-17