Say, Is Trump’s Executive Order Temporarily Blocking People From Seven Nations Legal?

The Washington Post gives it a try in determining whether the order is legal and Constitutional, pairing David B. Rivkin Jr., who practices appellate and constitutional law in the District and served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush against Karen Tumlin, who is the legal director for the National Immigration Law Center and the NILC Immigrant Justice Fund. Tumlin is the liberal in the discussion, and really highlights the idiocy of the Democrats in their thoughts

Is President Trump’s executive order constitutional?

Karen Tumlin: Hi, James and David, looking forward to having this discussion with you both on this important topic. (James Downie is the reporter/moderator)

The executive order has several legal problems. I would highlight two of the most serious. First, ours is a nation that was founded on the premise that individuals should be free from religious discrimination by the government. That principle is enshrined in our Constitution and prohibits the federal government from discriminating against or favoring any religious group. This executive order does both. By banning the entry of individuals with valid visas from seven majority-Muslim countries, there is no question that the executive order singles out Muslims for disfavored treatment. Equally questionable is the preference given to minority religions under the executive order for refugees. Practically, this favors the admission of Christians.

Second, the executive order also violates the bedrock legal principle of equal protection under our laws. That constitutional guarantee means that the federal government cannot discriminate against individuals based on what they believe (their religion) or where they were born, without adequate rationale.

Tumlin starts off on pure fallacy: the premise of being free from religious discrimination applies to citizens of this country, and those we have allowed in legally. It does not apply to foreign citizens in foreign nations. Of course, the actual language of the First Amendment isn’t about discrimination: it is about Congress creating a national religion embedded within the government, along with stopping the free practice of religion. I wonder if Tumlin had as much of a problem when Team Obama was discriminating against Christian beliefs with orders such as the one that makes religious people like nuns purchase insurance that has contraception and abortifacients. When Obama was bringing in mostly Muslims and very few Christians. When he deported a family of Christians back to Germany who wanted to home school their kids. When states were slamming people who are religious for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings.

As to legal protection under the law, these foreign citizens in foreign nations are not under our protection. Our Constitution does not apply to them unless we choose to let them in. These are people outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

This is the slippery slope Leftists employ to get their way. They pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they like when they like it.

David B. Rivkin Jr.: Karen is jousting at a straw man. This executive order, by its very terms, does no more than suspend for 90 days entry for individuals from seven countries that have been identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism and where the conditions on the ground do not allow for high-quality vetting. The language of the executive order aside, there are more than 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world, and the vast majority of them are not affected by this order.

In addition to the rewriting of the order, Karen ignores the fact that the statutory and constitutional authorities overwhelmingly support the president’s ability to issue such an executive order. First, Congress expressly granted the president broad discretionary and non-reviewable authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens . . . or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” if he finds that such an entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” This authority, by the way, has been utilized by numerous past presidents, including both Presidents Bush, President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama.

Rivkin continues smacking her around (misogynistic language!!!!!), and Tumlin keeps trotting down the road of discriminatory language, yada yada yada. She should read the Constitution at some point, and realize that, no matter how much she likes globalism and open borders, the Constitution still doesn’t apply to foreigners in foreign nations.

Tumlin: The president is not king. He, too, must abide by our Constitution as well as the immigration laws duly written and passed by Congress. What the president has done here is attempt to hastily legislate by executive fiat.

Tumlin previously had no problem with Obama’s kingly immigration orders, because they conformed to her Worldview. And, guess what? He is abiding by the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and as given to him by the Constitution. Neither is under any obligation to allow unfettered immigration to our country. There is no Constitutional or legal right for foreigners to come to our country when they want. It is our determination as to whether we want them. If they’re a potential threat, why would we want them?

Oh, BTW, the narrative on no one from the countries in question being arrested? That has been blown up and debunked.

Crossed at Right Wing News.