Ah, the havoc wreaked by the courts by trying to outlaw Trump's very legal “extreme vetting” executive order.
It is almost as if the Democrats want to destroy the United States, and are willing to make a compact with the Devil, himself, to do it.
No matter where on the argument about Islam you sit, be it that you think it is a religion of peace, or that it is a totalitarian political ideology masking as a religion, the truth is that among the Muslim population there is a significant segment of the people hiding within its ranks who are actually terrorists and supporters of a violent jihad. Even if it is but a small percent of the entire population of Muslims, the reality is that there is still a significant threat of terrorism lurking within the Muslim population.
The executive order by Trump limiting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries was careful not the use the word “Muslim,” or “Islamic,” and instead focused on the behavior of the subject nations. While it is true that nearly all terrorism is committed by Muslims, or in connection to Islam, President Trump focused on the recent documented history of countries that harbor terrorists, fund terrorism, and promotes terrorism. The seven countries were chosen because of their behavior in association with terrorism, not because of their majority population's religious affiliation. Had the religious affiliation been the primary factor, fifty other countries would have been added to the list of target nations on the list.
Based on the concept that it is the President's job to execute the laws of the United States, as indicated in Article II of the United States Constitution, and there are laws on the books that prohibit certain persons from immigrating or traveling into the United States, and there are laws on the books that empower the President to prohibit certain persons or groups of persons from entering the United States if he feels that those persons could pose a danger to the national security of the United States, the “extreme vetting” executive order is completely legal, and constitutional.
There is no authority in the U.S. Constitution giving the federal courts the legal power to strike down an executive order. Any expressed power regarding the striking down of executive actions or orders, if the power is being misused or abused, lies with Congress, and the States. There are numerous mechanisms for the Congress, or the States, to act upon their responsibility as a check on the President. The ability to starve any presidential action of any funding is granted to the House of Representatives in Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. In the same article, the House is granted the power of impeachment. Congress can also use legislation to override any executive action or order, provided that they have enough votes to override a veto. States can nullify, or call a convention to establish an amendment making null and void presidential activities.
The courts, however, have sought fit to do as they've always done, and act upon a power they gave to themselves in Marbury v. Madison (and other subsequent judicial rulings and opinions). The unelected, untermed judges have illegally and unconstitutionally struck down Trump's executive order based on their opinion that they have that power.
Nobody has flinched, except for a few well-informed conservatives, because we've been taught since as far as history is willing to tell us that the courts have this magical and mystical power of being the end all of all law. There is no stopping them, we are told. The judges are the ultimate gods of the rule of law, and to disagree with them is to be against the rule of law.
What if the courts find in opposition of leftism? What then? Was it okay when Obama ignored “conservative” court rulings over and over again?
To show that the “enemy” knows how effective Trump's executive order truly was, since the judges have illegally halted Trump's order, the enemy has been taking advantage of the opening gap in opportunity.
Sixty percent of the refugees admitted into the United States since the federal courts decided to put a halt on President Trump’s executive order designed to prevent “foreign terrorist entry into the United States” have originated from five of the seven countries identified by the administration and its predecessor as most risky.
Of the total 2,576 refugees resettled in the U.S. from around the world since U.S. District Judge James Robart’s February 3 restraining order, 1,549 (60.1 percent) are from Syria (532), Iraq (472), Somalia (363), Iran (117), and Sudan (65). No refugees have arrived from the other two applicable countries, Yemen and Libya.
Of the 2,576 refugees to have arrived since Feb. 3, 1,424 (55.3 percent) are Muslims – 817 Sunnis, 132 Shi’ites, and 475 refugees self-identified simply as Muslims, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Of the refugees hailing from the specified countries of terrorist concern, Muslims accounted for the overwhelming majority of those admitted in all cases except for Iran.
Muslims comprised 99.6 percent of the admissions from Syria; 73.5 percent of those from Iraq; 99.7 percent of those from Somalia; and 93.8 percent of those from Sudan. Of the Iranian refugees admitted, by contrast, only 9.4 percent were Muslims, while just under 60 percent were Christians of various denominations.
Trump’s Jan. 27 order barred entry to the U.S. of all refugees for 120 days; prohibited entry to refugees from Syria indefinitely; and blocked all entry – immigrant and non-immigrant – by nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen for 90 days.
(The order does not itself name the seven countries, referring instead to “countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).” That law, signed by President Obama in Dec. 2015, required additional security for arrivals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan and any other country designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a source of legitimate terrorism concerns. Two months later Obama’s DHS added Somalia, Yemen and Libya to the list of “countries of [terrorist] concern.”)
In the week between Trump’s inauguration and his Jan. 27 executive order, a total of 2,090 refugees were admitted to the U.S., of whom 918 (43.9 percent) were from the identified countries: 296 from Syria, 218 from Iraq, 211 from Somalia, 155 from Iran, 37 from Sudan, one from Yemen and none from Libya.
The following seven-day period – from the day of the executive order to the day before the judge’s restraining order – only 19 refugees were admitted from the countries of concern (18 Somalis and one Iraqi, all but two arriving on the actual day of the order). Those 19 comprised just 2.2 percent of the total 861 arrivals over that period.
– Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary