In a warning to Americans who oppose President Trump’s travel ban, Nigel Farage, the leader of Britain’s “Brexit” movement, stated that Wednesday’s terrorist attack in London highlights the importance of properly vetting immigrants and refugees.
Warning for Americans: strict vetting necessary
Farage said the inclusion policies championed by former Prime Minister Tony Blair has resulted in communities populated by foreign immigrants who refuse to assimilate into British culture and society. He warned Americans against allowing the same thing to happen in their country, urging those who oppose President Trump’s travel ban to understand that stricter vetting measures are necessary to protect one’s homeland.
Said Farage, opponents to the travel ban “need to have a long, hard think about what they are doing.” He called lax immigration policies an “open door inviting terrorism.”
Extreme vetting is simply common-sense, said Farage, and he added that, in the wake of the attack, Britons would undoubtedly seek stronger guidance from their own leaders on the subject. “We’ve made some terrible mistakes in this country” Farage said, referring to Great Britain’s lax immigration policies.
Activist judge shopping: finding the ripest banana
After the 2001 September 11 attacks, the United States attorney general announced a “National Security Entry-Exit Registration System”, requiring non-immigrant alien males from 24 Muslim-majority countries (plus North Korea) to appear for registration and fingerprinting.
A series of lawsuits filed in the wake of that pronouncement alleged the system “was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims”; allegations virtually identical those those being shouted today by liberal progressives in response to President Trump’s travel ban.
The courts that reviewed those earlier lawsuits determined that there was “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the registration requirement, i.e. national security, and that the countries named in the announcement were “selected on the basis of national security criteria.”
The courts today, however, are a fundamentally different judiciary than those who heard those earlier national security arguments. With the influx of “activist” judges appointed or elected under former president Obama, customized, position-supporting justice may now be shopped for as easily as picking ripe bananas off of the store shelf.
The truth about the travel ban
Acting to fulfill a campaign promise to secure America’s borders and protect its citizens from foreign terrorists, President Trump signed two executive orders impacting entry into the United States.
The original executive order barred people from seven majority-Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya) from entering the U.S. for 90 days. It also halted refugee resettlement for 120 days and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees.
The revised order removed Iraq from the list, and lifted the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. Visa and “green card” holders from the countries on the list will still be allowed into the country, as will dual nationals traveling on a passport from a country not on the list.
The second executive order noted that each of the six countries is either a state sponsor of terrorism or “has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations or contains active conflict zones”. This “diminishes the foreign government’s willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States.”
Why the 9th Circuit and District Court rulings will be overturned
Circuit Judge Jay Bybee wrote a dissenting opinion when the 9th Circuit Court struct down President Trump’s first travel ban. Judge Bybee noted that, under the constitution, the political, not the judicial branches of government control immigration. Put simply, immigration policy is set by congress and the executive office, not by judges.
The Supreme Court has determined that, when a President exercises his power under the constitution to make policies and rules for the exclusion of aliens based on bona fide reasons such as national security, the courts may not look behind the exercise of that discretion. Judge Bybee noted that, whether the executive order is called a “Muslim ban” or something else, the judiciary may simply not get involved. Said Bybee, if there is a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for the president’s actions, “our inquiry is at an end”.
When he struct down Trump’s second travel ban, Hawaii District Court Judge Derrick Watson stated his decision was based in large part on (then candidate) Trump’s campaign statements regarding muslim extremism. Pointing to those campaign statements, Judge Watson, an “activist” judge appointed by former president Obama, ruled that President Trump’s executive order constituted religious discrimination.
However, 9th Circuit Court Judge Judge Alex Kozinski, who wrote his own dissenting opinion in the 9th Circuit case, strongly disagrees. Judge Kozinski voiced his frustration at his Hawaii peer’s reasoning, “This is folly. Candidates say many things on the campaign trail; they are often contradictory or inflammatory. No shortage of dark purpose can be found by sifting through the daily promises of a drowning candidate, when in truth the poor shlub’s only intention is to get elected. No Supreme Court case — indeed no case anywhere that I am aware of — sweeps so widely in probing politicians for unconstitutional motives.”
Legal scholars widely agree that both the 9th Circuit and Judge Watson’s rulings will be swiftly overturned.
