Displaying posts categorized under


Trump’s Immigration Executive Orders and the Constitution Thumbs up or thumbs down? Michael Cutler

President Trump has stated that he plans to modify and re-issue his executive order concerning his executive order to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States who are citizens of countries that have a nexus to terrorism and where the citizens of those countries cannot be properly vetted to prevent terrorists from entering the United States.

It will be interesting to see what the new executive order will contain. I am certain that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be able to devise a “new and improved” executive order. However, I am still struggling to understand how the first order ran into any problems.

Those opposed to President Trump’s executive orders on immigration have freely and frequently invoked the claim that those executive orders are “unconstitutional.”

Although many politicians, pundits and journalists have made that claim on a string of news programs on the major networks, they have rarely, if ever, been challenged to explain how the President’s executive orders violate the Constitution.

Usually when making their fatuous claims about the “unconstitutionality” of the immigration executive orders, they cite the First Amendment of the Constitution and the issue of religious freedom.

What has been generally glossed over was the fact that the executive order did not mention any religion, let alone Islam. However, inasmuch the seven countries identified in the executive order as being “Muslim majority countries” the illusion was created that President Trump was attempting to bar the entry of Muslims into the United States.

What was also ignored by the media is that the list had been compiled by the Obama administration.

What has additionally been ignored is that in 1980 President Carter suspended the entry of citizens of Iran into the United States when our embassy at Tehran was seized.

What if Trump treated Muslims as Muslims treat ‘infidels’? By Raymond Ibrahim

As American liberals and leftists continue to portray Donald Trump’s immigration ban on seven Muslim nations in the worst possible terms—from “racist” to “Islamophobic”—and as Muslim activists continue to claim “shock and trauma,” a lone Egyptian man has asked some relevant questions that few Muslims care to face.

The man in question is Dr. Ahmed Abu Maher, a researcher and political activist who regularly appears on Arabic language television and who has a long record of exposing Islamic institutions like Al Azhar University for using texts and curriculums that promote terrorism in the name of Islam. On Feb. 6, Maher posted a brief video of himself speaking in Arabic, relevant portions of which I translate below:

Friends, in regards to the presidential victory of Donald Trump, we wanted to ask our brothers—the fuqaha [jurists of Islamic law] and the ulema [scholars of Islam]—a question: If this man who has on more than one occasion announced that he doesn’t want Muslims … were to coerce, through the power of arms, the greater majority of Muslims living in America … to become Christians, or pay jizya, or else he takes over their homes, kills their men and enslaves their women and girls, and sells them on slave markets. If he were to do all this, would he be considered a racist and a terrorist or not? Of course, I’m just hypothesizing, and know that the Bible and its religion do not promote such things, but let’s just assume: Would he be a racist or not? Would he be a terrorist or not? How then [when one considers] that we have in our Islamic jurisprudence, which you teach us, and tell us that all the imams have agreed that the Islamic openings [i.e., conquests] are the way to disseminate Islam? This word “openings” [futuhat]—we must be sensitive to it! The Islamic openings mean swords and killing. The Islamic openings, through which homes, castles, and territories were devastated, these … [are part of] an Islam which you try to make us follow. So I wonder O sheikh, O leader of this or that Islamic center in [New York], would you like to see this done to your wife and daughter? Would you—this or that sheikh—accept that this be done to your children? That your daughter goes to this fighter [as a slave], your son to this fighter, a fifth [of booty] goes to the caliph and so forth? I mean, isn’t this what you refer to as the Sharia of Allah? … So let’s think about things in an effort to discern what’s right and what’s wrong.

To those unacquainted with the subject matter, Maher is referring to history’s Islamic conquests, which in Muslim tradition are referred to in glorious terms, as altruistic “openings” (futuhat) that enabled the light of Islam to shine through to mankind. For centuries, Muslim armies invaded non-Muslim territories, giving the inhabitants three choices: convert to Islam, or else pay jizya (tribute money) and accept third class status as a “humbled” dhimmi (see Koran 9:29), or else face the sword, death, and slavery.

Ninth Circuit May Rehear Trump’s Travel-Ban Case At least one judge on the appeals court has asked for an en banc hearing. By Jenna Ellis

At least one judge on the Ninth Circuit has requested reconsideration in the matter of State of Washington and Minnesota v. President Trump. The Ninth Circuit chief judge issued an order Friday stating that an unnamed judge among the 29 active members of the circuit court has requested an en banc hearing — meaning that eleven judges or possibly the entire panel would hear the case, rather than the select three-judge panel that issued the 3-0 ruling against Trump’s executive order.

Procedurally, any judge on the circuit court may sua sponte — on the judge’s own initiative without a party asking or moving the court through any written pleadings — request a reconsideration before a fuller bench, rather than the select panel.

The Ninth Circuit’s en banc proceedings typically only consist of eleven judges, as the controlling federal law allows that for circuits with more than 15 judges to limit en banc hearings to “such number of members of its en banc courts as may be prescribed by rule of the court of appeals.” Currently, per the Ninth Circuit’s Rule 35-3, eleven judges sit for a “limited en banc court,” which usually include the chief judge. Parties may suggest or request a hearing before the whole panel of 29 judges; however, the Ninth Circuit has never granted an en banc hearing before the entire panel.

The court’s February 10 order requires the parties to file briefs by 11:00 a.m. Pacific time on Thursday, February 16, arguing their respective positions only on whether the matter should be reconsidered before the fuller panel. Importantly, amicus (or “friend of the court”) briefs may also be filed by interested organizations on either side, seeking to advise the court whether or not to grant a rehearing.

En banc proceedings are not typical, but usually occur in cases that are considered extremely important because of the parties, the precedent value, or because they are particularly noteworthy. This case is particularly suited for a fuller panel review because of the serious issue and extreme importance to the country.

Trump on Immigration Policy: ‘Doing What We Said We Would Do’ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offers polite disagreement to policy by stating his nation’s own By Louise Radnofsky

WASHINGTON—U.S. President Donald Trump said that deportations since his inauguration reflect that “I’m just doing what we said we would do” to make the country safer, adding that travel restrictions on people from countries suspected of sympathizing with terrorism were “getting such praise.”

“We’re actually taking people that are criminals, very, very hardened criminals in some cases with a tremendous track record, and we’re getting them out,” Mr. Trump said, at a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in which the two men were asked about contrasts in the two countries’ approach on refugees.

“It’s a stance of common sense,” Mr. Trump said in apparent reference to the travel restrictions. “We are going to pursue it vigorously.”

Mr. Trudeau offered polite disagreement.

Germany’s Migrant Rape Crisis: January 2017 Tolerating a “rape culture” to sustain a politically correct stance on mass migration by Soeren Kern

“Whoever behaves in his host country as the reports suggest has not only lost any claim to our hospitality but also their right to asylum!” — Mayoral candidate Volker Stein, Frankfurt.

The actual number of migrant-related sex crimes in Germany is at least two or three times higher than the official number. Only 10% of the sex crimes committed in Germany appear in the official statistics. — André Schulz, head of the Criminal Police Association.

An even more toxic practice is for police deliberately to omit any references to migrants in crime reports. This lapse makes it impossible for German citizens to understand the true scale of the migrant crime problem.

City police asked German media to delete any images of the suspect. A note for editors stated: “The legal basis for publishing the surveillance photos has been dispensed with. We strongly urge you to take this into account in future reporting and to remove and/or make changes to existing publications.”

“As a refugee, it is difficult to find a girlfriend.” — Asif M., a 26-year-old asylum seeker from Pakistan, in court on charges he raped one woman and attempted to rape five others.

German authorities are investigating reports that dozens of Arab men sexually assaulted female patrons at bars and restaurants in downtown Frankfurt on New Year’s Eve 2016.

The attacks, in which mobs of migrants harassed women in a “rape game” known as “taharrush gamea” (Arabic for “collective sexual harassment”), are said to have mirrored the mass sexual assaults of women in Cologne and other German cities on New Year’s Eve 2015.

Germans protesting the New Year’s Eve 2015 mass sexual assaults wave flags, alongside a banner saying “Rapefugees Not Welcome,” on January 9, 2016 in Cologne. (Image source: Getty Images)

A report published by Bild on February 5 alleged that some 900 migrants, many of whom were intoxicated, gathered at the central train station in Frankfurt on December 31, 2016. Police blocked their access to the Mainufer, a downtown pedestrian area along the Main River and the site of a large New Year’s celebration, so the migrants walked to the Fressgasse, another downtown pedestrian zone known for its restaurants and bars.

Witnesses said that groups of up to 50 migrants of “Arab or North African” appearance entered several establishments and began sexually assaulting female patrons. They also stole handbags and jackets, threw bottles and firecrackers, and, for good measure, finished their victims’ drinks.

Frankfurt Police insist they did not know about the incidents until Bild, the newspaper with the largest circulation in Germany, reported on them. It remains unclear why the victims waited more than a month before coming forward with their complaints. A police spokesperson said the claims are “worrying” and “cannot be excluded.”

Some say the incidents in Frankfurt harken back to those in Cologne, where police covered up the sexual assaults for several days, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments, until local media reported on them. Others question why no cellphone videos or photographs surfaced on social media to corroborate the claims.

Previously, the police in Frankfurt reported only one assault on New Year’s Eve: a 30-year-old migrant from Afghanistan attacked a 25-year-old woman at the Mainufer.

Frankfurt’s Mayor, Peter Feldmann, said: “There is zero tolerance for any abuses. I have great confidence in our police. They should always be contacted immediately. Only then can they do their work.”

Christoph Schmitt, security spokesman for the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), said: “It is unacceptable that women have been treated this way. If mobs of male refugees are making the city unsafe, then we need more police on the streets and more video surveillance.”

Mayoral candidate Volker Stein said: “While we had high contingent of police at the Main River, the rest of the city was left to the rampaging hooligans. Whoever behaves in his host country as the reports suggest has not only lost any claim to our hospitality, but also their right to asylum!”

Other German cities also reported sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve 2016, despite an increased police presence and crowds that were far smaller than on New Year’s Eve 2015.

Islamic Terror and the U.S. Temporary Stay on Immigration by Uzay Bulut

It is short-sighted and reckless to blame President Trump for trying to protect his country and keep his country safe — as any good leader is supposed to do. It would be much wiser to direct our anger where it belongs — at Muslim extremists and Muslim terrorists.

To many people, it must be easier to go after the U.S. president than after ISIS terrorists. That way, critics of the president can also pose as “heroes” while ignoring the real threats to all of humanity.

Critics of Muslim extremists get numerous death threats from some people in the West because they courageously oppose the grave human rights violations — forced marriages, honor killings, child rape, murdering homosexuals and female genital mutilation (FGM), among others.

Why do we even call criticism of such horrific practices “courageous”? It should have been the most normal and ordinary act to criticize beheadings, mutilations and other crimes committed by radical Muslims. But it is not.

On the contrary, the temporary ban aims to protect genuine refugees such as Bennetta Bet-Badal, who was murdered in San Bernardino. It would be much wiser to direct our anger where it belongs — at Muslim extremists and Muslim terrorists.

In San Bernardino on December 2, 2015, 14 people were murdered and 22 others seriously wounded in a terrorist attack. The perpetrators were Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married couple. Farook was an American-born U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, who worked as a health department employee. Malik was a Pakistani-born lawful permanent resident of the United States.

Among the victims of the terror attack was Bennetta Bet-Badal, an Assyrian Christian woman born in Iran in 1969. She fled to the U.S. at age 18 to escape Islamic extremism and the persecution of Christians that followed the Iranian revolution.

“This attack,” stated the Near East Center for Strategic Engagement (NEC-SE), “showcases how Assyrians fled tyranny, oppression, and persecution for freedom and liberty, only to live in a country that is also beginning to be subject to an ever-increasing threat by the same forms of oppressors.”

“NEC-SE would like to take this opportunity to once again urge action to directly arming the Assyrians and Yezidis and other minorities in their indigenous homeland, so that they can defend themselves against terrorism and oppression. This tragedy is evidence that the only way to effectively counter terrorism is not solely here in the US, but abroad and at its root.”

Members of the Islamic State (ISIS) have declared several times that they target “kafirs” (infidels) in the West.

In 2014, Syrian-born Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the official spokesperson and a senior leader of the Islamic State, declared that supporters of the Islamic State from all over the world should attack citizens of Western states, including the US, France and UK:

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be.

“Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.”

It is this barbarity that the new U.S. administration is trying to stop.

Daryl McCann: When Walls Trump Bridges

The Left, as usual, wishes to cast the White House executive order banning residents of seven ardently Islamic countries as being motivated by race and religious prejudice. It’s an entirely predictable stance and, as always, it seeks to obscure the obvious beneath social-justice boilerplate.
It always comes back to Bernard Lewis. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the mainstream media gave Lewis, who turns 101 years old on May 31, a brief window of opportunity to explain the root causes of Islamic revivalism. In 2003, What Went Wrong? topped the New York Times’ list of best-selling paperbacks and The Crisis of Islam performed the same feat in the hardback category. The PC police, confused and dismayed by the horror of September 11, had permitted – even encouraged – consenting adults to discuss the connection between Islam and radical Islamic terrorism. But it was not for long.

Our gatekeepers soon regained their composure and today America, and the West in general, is paying the price, a case in point being the outcry in response to President Trump’s attempt at gatekeeping: Executive Order (EO) 13769 or “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorists Entry into the United States”.

There are, to be sure, reasons to fault the White House’s EO banning entry of nationals from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Yemen for 90 days and refugees for four months. Many – though not all – Iraqi Kurds, Iranian exiles and Syrian Christians are pro-secular democracy and would prove loyal citizens of the United States, or Australia for that matter. Ed Yong, writing for The Atlantic, makes a convincing case that prohibiting Iranian scientists from obtaining residency is detrimental to the interests of the United States. He adds the salient point that Iranian immigrants, who are for the most part Shia, are not generally prone to Islamic radicalism, let alone acts of terrorism.

Others from the nominated seven countries, Sunni Muslim or otherwise, would relish the opportunity to be patriotic Americans. Conversely, émigrés from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan might be more likely – statistically – to engage in acts of domestic terrorism, despite the two countries being omitted from the Trump’s travel-restriction policy. Take, as an instance, the December 2, 2015, San Bernardino massacre. Syed Farook was an American-born citizen of Pakistani descent while his terrorist wife, Tashfeen Malik, was a Pakistani-born lawful resident of the United States. Fifteen of the nineteen September 11 terrorists were Saudi, the rest from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. We might also note that Saudi money, particularly since 1979, has funded the radicalisation/Salafi-style transformation of mosques from Djakarta to, well, San Bernardino.

There is, additionally, the issue of the executive order’s scope and reach being too broad. Even Ken Klukowski, senior legal editor for the pro-Trump Breitbart News, has implicitly acknowledged that EO 13769 contains “legally problematic provisions”, such as the entry ban on those with passports from one of the seven proscribed countries who are also green-card holders and, therefore, lawful permanent residents. Although procedural modifications were soon put in place to circumvent the problem, over the first weekend 109 legitimate travellers were detained and held for questioning. When President Trump emphasised the smallness of the number, given the 325,000 arrivals, the mainstream media mostly ignored his comment or took umbrage. Evan Urquhart, writing for Slate, maintained that injustice is injustice even if only a few are inconvenienced: “When something is unfair and indefensible, the last resort of scoundrels is to downplay the number of people who have been unjustly treated.”

Study: 72 Convicted Terrorists Who Live in U.S. Came from Countries Covered by Vetting Order By Rick Moran

This should come as a rude shock to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges who justified overturning Trump’s “extreme vetting” executive order covering seven mostly Muslim countries by claiming there is “no evidence” those countries have produced a terrorist.

The Center for Immigration Studies compiled a list of 72 U.S. residents from those seven countries who were convicted of terror-related charges.

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:

Somalia: 20
Yemen: 19
Iraq: 19
Syria: 7
Iran: 4
Libya: 2
Sudan: 1
Total: 72

According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.


EU migration numbers 2016: 490.547 immigrants, 1.205 million asylum applicants

From the offices of EU Parliament’s think tank, comes another publication on migration. Though it claims the document is not the official position of EU parliament, the numbers cited are from official Frontex and Eurostat sources and it represents the documents MEP’s work with. The entire document can be downloaded from here in PDF format. These are the highlights:

Routes and numbers of illegal immigration January-November 2016

The total number of illegal migrants in the mentioned eleven month period: 490,547. The total number of asylum applicants is almost 2.5 times higher at 1.205 million, which is a modest drop from 2015’s 1.323 million.

‘Applicants’ refers to anyone applying for asylum or similar protection or included in an application as a family member.

So while there may have been a sharp decline in – recorded – illegal immigration, the number of applicants has not gone down substantially.

Meanwhile, the geographical displacement of asylum applicants, per capita, remains focused on Germany and Sweden, with countries on the route there (Greece, Hungary and Austria) also taking on substantial numbers.

Trump’s Travel Order Shields the U.S. from Real-Life Migrant Mayhem The seven Muslim-majority countries were initially targeted by Obama. By Deroy Murdock

If President Donald J. Trump really wanted a “Muslim ban,” as his manic critics insist, he would have barred from the Golden Door the citizens of Indonesia (Earth’s most populous Islamic nation), Bangladesh, and Egypt, for starters.

Instead, of 51 Muslim-majority countries and territories, Trump has placed temporary travel limits on just seven: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. While some 205 million people are affected by this 90-day order, notwithstanding court orders to the contrary, just north of 1 billion people in those 44 other places are as welcome here as ever.

Some “Muslim ban.”

Trump’s executive order actually grants federal officials a grand total of three months to figure out how to give people from those seven states stricter scrutiny — not because they are Muslims, but because those spots are awash in militant Islam.

“We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” Trump stated January 29. “America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border.”

Trump’s statutory authority to regulate immigration is incontrovertible, unilateral, and virtually absolute. In this area, the unambiguous power of the president of the United States resides in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, popularly called the McCarren-Walter Act. According to 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f):

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, 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.

And, by the way, how did Trump select the seven nations included in his executive order? Did Rush Limbaugh whisper them into his ear at an inaugural ball? Did the alt-right transmit them via semaphore?