Monday, May 29, 2017

Circus Of Appeals



Egypt and Manchester Prove the Fourth Circuit Wrong



The massacre of Christians and innocents in Manchester, England and again in Egypt comes against the backdrop of the Fourth Circus, er, Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the Trump travel ban as an unconstitutional ban on Muslims. Your honors, may I submit as evidence against your ruling the bodies of the dead murdered by radical Islamic terrorists in Egypt and in England?

Fortunately, the case is now likely to go to the Supreme Court upon which, thanks to President Trump, Justice Neil Gorsuch now holds the Scalia seat.

The Manchester bomber’s family is from Libya, one of the countries included in Trump’s travel ban. Descriptions of the terrorist as “home-grown” because he was born in Britain are inaccurate. Being born in Britain doesn’t make one British, any more than in the San Bernardino attack being born in America makes you American. You have to want to be British or American or anything else, immersing yourself in and respecting the culture of your new homeland. You must assimilate, not plot to murder your hosts who welcomed you. As Fox News reported:

Other terror links involving the bomber's relatives emerged Wednesday. Abedi's father, Ramadan, was a member of the Al Qaeda-backed Libyan Islamic Fighting group in the 1990s, according to former security official Abdel-Basit Haroun -- but the father denied the claim. In addition, the killer's brother Hashim had links to the Islamic State and may have been planning a separate attack in Tripoli, a Libyan government spokesman told Reuters. Salman Abedi left Libya for England four days before the bombing, his mother said. He apparently fooled his parents by telling them he was heading to a pilgrimage in the Muslim holy city of Mecca, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Sounds suspiciously like the Tsarnaev brothers, doesn’t it, traveling back to one’s terrorist roots before murdering innocents. Yet another case in point for Trump’s “extreme vetting.” The latest massacre of Coptic Christians, this time travelling on a bus in Egypt, may not seem to be, but is a reminder of the worldwide reach of ISIS. Egypt is not on the travel ban list but is an example of how terror will always find an opening to spread its deadly venom.

A team of gunmen opened fire on a bus carrying Coptic Christians south of Cairo Friday, killing at least 28, including children, and wounding 22 other people, Egyptian officials confirmed.

As many as 10 attackers stormed the bus dressed in military uniforms and wearing masks, according to witnesses. The victims were on their way to visit a monastery. Only three children survived the attack, the Copts United news portal reported…

No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, but Egypt’s Coptic Christians have become the preferred target of the Islamic State in the region. Egypt's Copts, the Middle East's largest Christian community, have repeatedly cried out for help from discrimination, as well as outright attacks, at the hands of the country's majority Muslim population. Coptic Christians account for about 10 percent of Egypt's 93 million people.

Someone should tell the Fourth Circuit that this is what discrimination, aka religious persecution, really looks like. The navel-gazers on the Fourth Circuit, however, think, based on campaign rhetoric rather than any recitation of actual law, that it is discrimination to bar the killers in Manchester and Egypt from being properly vetted or by being denied entry until proper vetting can be done.

We are asked to show compassion for potential jihadis but not for potential victims who publicly express their fear of unrestricted admission of refugees from hotbeds of terror. The protestors are wrong that such jihadists have a “right” to be here. The President under the Constitution has authority over immigration policy and the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Those who go abroad to be radicalized should not be readmitted. Those who believe Sharia law trumps the Constitution should not be allowed in, period. Give us you poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but not those desiring to end our way of life. That is what extreme vetting is all about.

As Rush Limbaugh noted on his show, President Trump’s travel ban is lawful under 8 U.S Code 1182, and there is ample historical precedent for employing its bestowed authority to ban any class of aliens at any time,  for any reason if the President deems the national security of the United States requires it:

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.
“Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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 non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Over here, everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a ton of ’em….

In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. When this law, inadmissible aliens I just read to you, which I’m gonna be reading a lot to you today to the point you’re gonna get tired of hearing it, but you won’t forget it.

As for the application by Judge Derrick Watson of the Establishment Clause to Trump’s travel ban, this is from some Alice In Wonderland law book. If the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause, why hasn’t 8 U.S. Code 1182 been struck down by Judge Watson or any other liberal judge?  Oklahoma Attorney Robert Barnes, interviewed on Sirius XM radio, says Judge Watson is clearly wrong  in extending the Establishment Clause to non-citizen foreigners:

“His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens,” Barnes continued. “Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time. Instead, this judge said it did, as long as you had a university here who wanted to assert, quote-unquote, the foreigner’s rights, or you had some physical person here. In this case, it was one of the leading Muslim imams in Hawaii; he wants to bring over various family and friends from the Middle East.”

“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.

“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.

“So it’s an extraordinarily broad order. Its legal doctrine has no limits. If you keep extending this, it means people from around the world have a special right to access the United States, visit the United States, emigrate to the United States, get visas to the United States. There wouldn’t be any limit, and the president would never be able to control our own borders. It would be up solely to the whim of a federal judge who effectively delegated it, in this case, to a Muslim imam in Hawaii,” he contended.

And who is this Imam who prompted Judge Watson’s order by asserting he had been harmed by President Trump’s travel ban? Conservative Review described the man behind the lawsuit:

Dr. Ismail Elshikh -- the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii -- is suing Trump in reaction to the second version of his immigration moratorium, which was signed on Monday. The order imposed a 90-day hold on foreign nationals from six terror-tied countries from entering the United States. According to the Muslim Association of Hawaii website, Imam Elshikh is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), a fringe Islamic organization that has a board and current leadership stacked with radical Islamic connections. Kyle Shideler, a terrorism expert and director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy, tells CR that it’s concerning that Imam Elshikh is a part of NAIF. “Given NAIF's history it should come as no surprise that the end goal of this lawsuit is, ultimately, weakening American counter-terrorism or immigration security efforts,” Shideler said. He added: "That a member of an organization whose leaders have included a convicted war criminal, an individual who defended donating money to a Hamas linked charity, and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism bombing wants to tell the American people who they can admit for immigration should say a lot about why such an executive order is needed in the first place."

The fact is that the Constitution, which gives the President exclusive power to conduct foreign policy, does not extend infinitely to every non-citizen on this planet who may have some connection to someone here. The law clearly gives the President the legal authority to ban entry to any noncitizen who he determines may be a threat to the national security of the United States.

Manchester and Egypt are chilling reminders of the threats we face from those who respect laws nor any religion. The terrorists of Egypt and Manchester would slaughter the judges of the Fourth Circuit in a heartbeat. Our courts, like our President, has an obligation to protect us from such predators. The greatest social service a government can perform for its people is to keep them alive and free.

From The American Thinker (May 27, 2017)

3 comments:

  1. "Being born in Britain doesn’t make one British, any more than in the San Bernadino attack being born in America makes you American"

    Being born in a barn does not necessarily make one a horse is the old adage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The fact is that the Constitution, which gives the President exclusive power to conduct foreign policy, does not extend infinitely to every non-citizen on this planet who may have some connection to someone here."


    This is exactly what the courts are saying. The Supreme Court will have to decide this and hopefully for good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Supreme Court has more sane members than any of the Appeals Courts do, but you never know about Anthony Kennedy.

      Delete