Patterico's Pontifications

1/30/2017

Justin Amash’s Statement on Donald Trump’s Immigration Order

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:30 am

There are few politicians I still respect in Congress. Two that stand out in my mind are Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Justin Amash. Rep. Amash published a well-argued statement on Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration yesterday, and I think it’s worth reproducing here. Emphasis is mine:

Like President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, President Trump’s executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system. It’s not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.

The president’s denial of entry to lawful permanent residents of the United States (green card holders) is particularly troubling. Green card holders live in the United States as our neighbors and serve in our Armed Forces. They deserve better.

I agree with the president that we must do much more to properly vet refugees, but a blanket ban represents an extreme approach not consistent with our nation’s values. While the executive order allows the admittance of immigrants, nonimmigrants, and refugees “on a case-by-case basis,” arbitrariness would violate the Rule of Law.

Ultimately, the executive order appears to be more about politics than safety. If the concern is radicalism and terrorism, then what about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others?

Finally, we can’t effectively fight homegrown Islamic radicalism by perpetuating the “us vs. them” mindset that terrorists use to recruit. We must ensure that the United States remains dedicated to the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and liberty. It can’t be stated strongly enough that capitalism creates prosperity and improves assimilation into society.

That is a stirring statement of values that makes me proud to be a supporter of Amash’s. I’m not in total agreement with him on every aspect of the statement, as I am not opposed to the notion of a blanket short-term ban on refugees from countries like Syria. Such countries are likely to send us some terrorists who pose a danger to our citizens, as well as other radical supporters of ISIS and sharia who cannot assimilate into a culture of freedom and classical liberalism. Nor am I opposed to a more general short-term ban on immigration from those countries, if done in a constitutional manner, in consultation with Congress. Perhaps my mind could be changed by arguments made in a free and open debate held in Congress, but I doubt it. Right now, like many Americans, I watch what is happening in Europe and I don’t want that to happen to my country.

That disagreement aside, freedom-loving people should be able to agree that an open debate on these matters would be preferable to a rushed diktat from the President’s pen, unreviewed by the Justice Department lawyers generally entrusted with reviewing such orders, and interpreted by partisan hacks like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller to snare green card holders in its net, over the objections of the Department of Homeland Security. That way of proceeding is chaotic by design, and erodes the respect for the administration held by sentient portions of the citizenry, as well as federal judges who will be asked to rule on such matters.

Also worth reading is Rep. Amash’s Facebook post on the legalities of the President’s order. I won’t quote the whole thing, but here is a relevant excerpt.

It’s not lawful to ban immigrants because of “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.

It’s lawful to ban nonimmigrants for almost any reason. These are people who are temporarily visiting the United States, like tourists or students.

It’s lawful to ban refugees for almost any reason. But banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise. We still should admit well-vetted persons.

Understanding these distinctions is important because supporters of President Trump’s executive order continue to wrongly insist that the order is lawful and that President Obama did almost the same thing in 2011. And opponents of President Trump’s executive order continue to wrongly insist that banning refugees violates the Constitution or the law.

I have been writing extensively on the legality of the President’s order, here and here, and I appreciate Rep. Amash weighing in on these matters in such a clear and courageous style. So much unexamined partisan nonsense — including the meme that Obama did exactly the same thing in 2011 — has clouded the issues on this topic that it’s refreshing to see someone bucking the rubber-stamping consensus emerging on the right.

In that vein, I want to extend a personal thanks to Rep. Amash for linking one of my posts on the topic on his Facebook page. I have been a fan of his for years, and indeed, my initial post on the legality of President Trump’s order referenced Rep. Amash. In that post, I said that if the order is illegal, “it should be condemned by anyone in Congress who still cares about limiting executive overreach. That group includes Senator Mike Lee, Representative Justin Amash, and — for the next four years — Democrats.” It’s a treat to see someone you admire sharing your work with others, and I thank Rep. Amash for doing so.

[Cross-posted at RedState and at The Jury Talks Back, which is the only place where I will be commenting on this post.]

99 Responses to “Justin Amash’s Statement on Donald Trump’s Immigration Order”

  1. the green card thing is a moot point now

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  2. what little Justin doesn’t understand is that if Mr. President Trump has reason to believe the Obama policies are letting terrorist muslim kill squads into the country he has an obligation to pause what’s happening while we can get professionals to make sure we’re vetting these wretched unacculturated violence-prone people properly

    keyword obligation

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  3. Obama banned Cuban refugees.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  4. little Justin’s a second generation Arab-American and the son of a Syrian immigrant so of course he’s gonna be all butthurt that his peeps are being scrutinized

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  5. Rebuttel

    8 U.S. CODE S 1182
    Inadmissible aliens

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds 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 a 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 appropriate

    joetote (ca8fe2)

  6. It’s not lawful to ban immigrants because of “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.

    If that is a true and accurate law then the law is illegal. If it were legal it would mean we have no legal way to ban immigrants whose “nationality, pace of birth , or place of residence” is a nation at war with us. That’s insanity.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  7. Plus, nobody but an American has the right to enter America. Period. Am I missing something?

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  8. Green card holders have a right to enter America.

    Davod (f3a711)

  9. that is a moot point now

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  10. @Davod:Green card holders have a right to enter America.

    It’s more analogous to a driver’s license. If you have one, yes you can drive, but you can lose that privilege. I do not believe an American citizen can lose it.

    Permanent Resident status is lost if the green card holder stays out of the US for over 180 days. A green card does not confer an inalienable right and it can be revoked for a lot of reasons.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  11. It can’t be stated strongly enough that capitalism creates prosperity and improves assimilation into society.

    Sigh ….

    The degree to which we need to improve the assimilation of jihadists is the problem. It’s not wealth, it’s not prosperity, it’s not ObamaCare, that they desire. Submission is the short form.

    BobStewartatHome (c24491)

  12. Plus, nobody but an American has the right to enter America. Period. Am I missing something?

    Everyone who legally resides in the US and has the relevant documentation has a right to come and go, barring court orders otherwise.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. I’m really not seeing that Justin Amash has gone into the same level of detail as, for example, SWC has. He doesn’t mention the 2015 law at all–which he appears to have voted for.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  14. @Kevin M:barring court orders otherwise.

    Or violating the conditions, like 180 days outside the country for green card holders.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  15. HOWEVER, there is nothing that says that you won’t be questioned, detained, strip-searched, etc, at the border. Citizens coming back from Peru or Colombia have long undergone strict scrutiny.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  16. 8 USC 1182 is a BIG law. It lists all the excludables. Would you believe doctors intending to practice medicine in the United States? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Read the whole thing as they say.

    And a textual reading of Section 1182(f) does authorize the President to do exactly what Trump is doing, for the reasons he says he is doing it, even though (still with a textual reading) the provision above says he cannot deny a green card to immigrants because of “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence”.

    Judgment in favor of Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. Which we do all the time, anyway, because of the country quota system.

    nk (dbc370)

  18. Where’s Amash’s response on Obama’s restrictions on coming into the country. On Obama deliberately ignoring Syrian Christians and taking Muslims instead. On Obama blocking Iraqi’s as he chose.

    Silence is deafening.

    We are blocking areas where terrorists come from. Not people based on country of origin or religion. On their likelihood of being engaged in actions that are in direct opposition to our nation. We don’t need to allow anyone into the country. Period.

    Close the darn border.

    NJRob (43d957)

  19. It’s not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality.

    When you include dual nationals living in a country oher than the one people are banned from, thats what you are doing.

    And the whole thing is stupid.

    Included in this is the former Iraqi Ambassador to the United States, (up to last June) Lukman Faily, who was scheduled to attend one of those discussion conferences in the United States that think tanks like to hold in the coming weeks.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-iraq.html?_r=0

    I suppose he might manage to get special permission if he tries. Iraq also might get off that list.

    The list of countries seems to consist of places that ISIS and maybe other terrorist groups have encouraged foreign fighters to go to, or countries whose governments facilitate Islamic terrorism (that would explain why Nigeria is not on the list. Afghanistan and Pakistan do have foreign fighters, but not from EU countries.)

    You have areas under terrorist control in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Iran and sudan are sponsors of terrorism. It must have to do with the possibility of them letting their assports be used.

    The original use of that was to require European nationals who had visited those countries to be ineligible for the visa waiver program. It required certain people from visa waiver countries to get a visa. It didn’t deny them visas.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  20. President Mr Donald could wish everyone a Happy New Year, and his haters would probably still find something cryptic and illegal about it!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  21. Plus, nobody but an American has the right to enter America. Period. Am I missing something?

    Everyone who legally resides in the US and has the relevant documentation has a right to come and go, barring court orders otherwise.
    Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/30/2017 @ 10:35 am

    You just can’t admit when someone else is right, can you? When you say “has the relevant documents” you’re saying “has PERMISSION to come and go”. I said RIGHT. Got it? Nobody has a right to come here but an American. Others may get permission but have no right.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  22. It is “non-textualist” to argue that because the granting of a green card cannot be denied on the basis of ““nationality, place of birth, or place of residence”, the President’s authority under Section (f) in regard to “any class of aliens” detrimental to the interests of the United States is likewise restricted. “Any class of aliens”. He can sweep with a broad brush. A case by case determination is not called for.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. The president’s denial of entry to lawful permanent residents of the United States (green card holders) is particularly troubling

    There is a question as to how that happened.

    Was it:

    A) Never intended to include green card holders but wrongly interpreted.

    B) Badly drafted, but correctly interpreted.

    C) Always intended but now re-interpreted.

    It is hard to answer because we don’t really know what Trump thought he was signing.

    It seems like this whole thing was drafted in secret (in order, we are told, so that terrorists, who might have have stayed out of the United States all the time that Obama was president, but made plans to come to the United States in the days and weeks after Trump became president, might not be able to suddenly advance their plans and buy a ticket to beat the deadline) with the State Departmenta and the Department of Homeland Security kept out of it.

    The Secretary of Homeland Security, General John F. Kelly, was in the middle of his first detailed
    briefing about it when it suddenly was signed.

    At first they didn’t know waht to do ad were told to put people on pause. DHS originally intepreted it not to apply to green card holders, then Bannon and Miller told them it did, then later, on Saturday night, Priebus and others said it didn’t.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html

    Stephen K. Bannon, the chief White House strategist, oversaw the writing of the order, which was done by a small White House team, including Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s policy chief…Mr. Trump offered few details as the campaign progressed, and as president-elect he promised to protect the country from terrorists with only vague promises of “extreme vetting.”

    But Mr. Bannon, who believes in highly restrictive immigration policies and saw barring refugees as vital to shoring up Mr. Trump’s political base, was determined to make it happen. He and a small group made up of the president’s closest advisers began working on the order during the transition so that Mr. Trump could sign it soon after taking office.

    A senior administration official said that the order was drafted in cooperation with some immigration experts on Capitol Hill and members of the “beachhead teams” — small groups of political appointees sent by the new White House to be liaisons and begin work at the agencies.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-national-security-council.html

    The hasty drafting of the immigration order, and its scattershot execution, brought a measure of Mr. Bannon’s chaotic and hyperaggressive political style to the more predictable administration of the federal government. Within hours of the edict, airport customs and border agents were detaining or blocking dozens of migrant families, some of whom had permanent resident status, until John F. Kelly, the new homeland security secretary, intervened.

    Mr. Kelly’s department had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order, but Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller, a hard-liner on immigration, overruled him, according to two American officials.

    Mr. Priebus, speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, indicated a softening of the stance, saying the order would not block “green card holders moving forward” — but said anyone seeking to enter the country from the listed countries would be subjected to tighter scrutiny.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  24. Congress can grant rights, Hoagie. It has complete power over immigration. That’s what Amash is saying. What Congress giveth, the Executive cannot taketh away. But in this case, 1) Congress did not grant that particular right to non-immigrants that Amash is claiming it did, and 2) it gave the President the authority to take it away from immigrants as well as non-immigrants.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. OT: Trump has signed a truly stupid order on regulations the AM. I say that not because I don’t like Trump, but because I don’t like stupid.

    Apparently he is channeling some ancient Pharaoh and ordering agencies to remove two regulations for everyone they issue. So, if the the Agriculture Department wants to write a regulation defining “colossal” eggs it has to get rid of two others? Does the Bureau of Weights and Measures have to get rid of two old measures for adding one new one?

    Sure, the EPA sucks and all, but there are MANY better ways to rein them in. The REINS Act. Undoing Chadha. Laws requiring agencies to consider and utilize public comment, and regulations that operated against public comment having to go to Congress for passage and presentment (and failure to do so would be actionable by anyone affected).

    Congress should also start cutting back regulatory powers and legal roadblocks. The Endangered Species Act needs a cost/benefit clause — currently it is almost absolute. Suits against Environmental Impact Reports need to be sharply limited, EIRs need to include the impact of doing nothing, and EIRs in many cases need to be eliminated.

    But this “Make It So!” order is just silly. What power the President is using is also unclear.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. he abliy to ‘suspend the entry’ of ‘any class of aliens’ whom he finds detrimental to the interests of the United States

    probably trumps

    no person shall…be discriminated against…because of the person’s…nationality [or] place of birth

    but is this determination required or not required to be true, or at least to have some rational basis?

    Also I see he only has the power to suspend, although that could probably last years.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  27. So even if he voted against it, you would think amash would reference the visa revision?

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. This executive order could be considered an abuse of discretion.

    When a president suspends the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, for such a period of time as he shall deem necessary, on the grounds that t would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, that’s really supposed to have a basisin fact.

    If you read it, you see that he really has the power to stop anyone not a U.S. citizen from coming into the United States. He could also (on the basis of some other law) stop all arirplanes from flying into or over the United States, which President Bush did after Septemeber 11th.

    What Trump did now is not what Congress intended.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  29. Ok, then. Let’s do the Halbig/Burwell, Roberts Court, let’s read Congress’s mind, “non-textual” construction, Sammy. Section 1182 is all about who is excluded. If there is an ambiguity in a particular provision, then it should be construed in favor of exclusion, don’t you think?

    nk (dbc370)

  30. missouri

    ikes

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  31. Chuck Schumer is in tears, Pelosi is apoplectic. Perhaps it’s time to announce if Schumer or Pelosi or anyone else would like to volunteer their districts for resettlement Trump’s listening. O

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQPigOs6V2k/WI6gGupVUzI/AAAAAAABFLc/PMriTChdKfM4o1WRfyGpNhtOFIDnFICZQCLcB/s1600/1ninetymilesnGdi21w4z169o1_1280.jpg

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  32. hijabs is no good

    I abjure these hijabs

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  33. Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 1/30/2017 @ 11:53 am

    Syrian refugees haven’t been resettled in San Francisco because rents are higher there (except for people benefitting from rent control) and the government pays a few months worth of expenses and they are trying not to spend too much money. They only go to high housing cost places if famuily members are there.

    But theer are plenty other Democrats whose districts do have refugees.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  34. The judgement of Mike Lee isn’t the best of late:

    WaPo October 8, 2016 headline: ‘Mike Lee urges Trump to quit as Utah Republicans abandon their party’s nominee.’ Other outlets reported it as well. And he did teevee, too.

    A month later Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. Syrian refugees haven’t been resettled in San Francisco because rents are higher there (except for people benefitting from rent control) and the government pays a few months worth of expenses and they are trying not to spend too much money. They only go to high housing cost places if famuily members are there.

    But theer are plenty other Democrats whose districts do have refugees.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f) — 1/30/2017 @ 12:14 pm

    Easily fixed. Just force some rent control housing in there. It’s San Fran, they love government forcing people to do things like that.

    NJRob (43d957)

  36. It is not maybe what the law sllows but what Congress obviously intended. This is one of those things where the amount of discretion granted is broad but never intended to be exercised arbitrarily because no such law would ever have been passed, and if Congress thought it passed such a law, a lot of other laws, and political debate, would be different. It’s just that this is the kind of thing where it is very difficult to specify the conditions in advance.

    So I contend that the president was given more legal authority than it was intended that the president would actually exercise. Congress preferred to give him too much rather than too little power. We also see that the president was required to give an expiration date. And the need to have a finding is also a cautionary instruction to the president of the United States.

    It ought to be true. Or at least be a reasonable proposition.

    Whether this is or is not legally an abuse of discretion, whether or not the president, like a judge, is or is not subject to any kind of abuse of discretion review, or should or should not be, this executive order is nevertheless, politically, an abuse of discretion.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  37. people should give Mr. President Trump the benefit of the doubt

    he’s earned that much

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  38. If there is an ambiguity in a statutory provision that gives the executive discretion – there is no ambiguity.

    The only question is whether the discretion granted exceeds the constitutional limits on executive discretion.

    nk is correct, Mike Lee clownishly wrong. He’s grandstanding.

    Its amazing how Trump is making his opponents beclown themselves.

    Steven Malynn (d29fc3)

  39. 28.

    What Congress intended and a strict adherence to the statues and laws as written are two different things. I am generally not impressed by courts attempting to discern intent. We speak of Executive overreach, and I believe it is a valid concern. But I would say it is also a valid concern to cast a wary eye on Judicial overreach. The letter of the law is supreme, not men in robes reading tea leaves. If such is not the case, then we may as well dispense with the Legislative branch altogether.

    Estarcarus (cd97e1)

  40. “You have areas under terrorist control in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Iran and sudan are sponsors of terrorism. It must have to do with the possibility of them letting their assports be used.”

    Use ’em, Sammeh?!?! I’d ruin ’em.

    Colonel Haiku (27c440)

  41. This discussion, now ongoing for, what, three days, evokes this Madison quote in me:

    It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

    Diffus (7b30f9)

  42. CNN runs banners reading travel ban creates “global chaos.”

    “Global chaos” … Seriously???

    Now you’ll understand why this ‘cable news channel’ will soon air a hard-hitting series titled ‘The History of Comedy.’

    This… is CNN.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. I know Hannity the Radio show is not the cup of tea for many here, but he lent me some perspective in his afternoon show with his “109 detainees”, which probably works out to 10 per major international airport. And from what I hear most were in secondary which is a glorified waiting room that yours truly gets shunted to (common hispanic name, I get Peru questions which I have never been to/no family from, this being mentioned by Kevin M). This is the least optimal for me as a future traveler to a wedding in the next several days, I would prefer full seperate rendition that does not clog up the waiting room for us false positive “South American” and “Irish/Dutch” terrorists

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  44. Oh look. Justin is siding squarely with the Film Actor’s Guild.

    Insane in the membrane
    (it’s because Justin is loco) [YouTube]
    Insane in the membrane
    (because Justin is loco)
    Insane in the membrane
    (it’s because Amish is loco)
    Insane in the membrane
    (it’s because Amish is loco)

    papertiger (c8116c)

  45. It’s going to be hilarious to watch Obama f*ck up Trump’s incompetent pseudo-presidency simply by exercising the Constitutional right that Trump hates the most: free speech.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  46. Leviticus, what the heck are you talking about?

    NJRob (43d957)

  47. This is just another “policy” objection masquerading as a legal objection.

    In 3 different threads on this subject no one who is claiming that the EO is illegal has taken the time to go to the language of the EO and quote from the provision that is supposedly in violation of Section 1152(a)(1)(A), the “non-disrimination” statute.

    I don’t have any issue with people who oppose the EO on policy grounds — that’s a topic on which Trump can rightfully respond “But I won the election”.

    And I fully believe this ENTIRE episode will disappear from the news tomorrow afternoon when he announces his Supreme Court selection.

    But what I think this demonstrates clearly to any in the middle who had doubts is that the media is the opposition party to the Trump Administration.

    If George Soros is willing to fund the expenses of 50,000 protesters spread around the country with respect to every action Trump takes, and the media is willing to cover every one of those protests like it was a V-E Day parade, the overwhelming mass of the country is going to rapidly develop “protest fatigue”.

    There seems to be some misapprehension on the left that the wider public supports the efforts of groups like the Direct Action Network. Eventually, those are the only street protestors — the anarchist groups — that Soros is going to be able to muster on a consistent basis. Its what they do — mostly because they are young and stupid, and think its fun.

    But its a long-term losing hand for Dems and the left.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  48. obama’s tiny little food stamp peener ain’t gittin any bigger not this week not ever

    obamacare benghazi and a shit-ton of now-repealed executive orders

    glory days yeah they pass you by

    harvardtrash preezy peaked too soon

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  49. obama’s tiny little food stamp peener ain’t gittin any bigger not this week not ever

    obamacare benghazi and a ton of now-repealed executive orders

    glory days yeah they pass you by

    harvardtrash preezy peaked too soon

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  50. @11. Bingo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. The EO was clearly rushed. Trump should have waited until summer to announce something like this, and after a thorough discussion with his advisers.

    It’s good that the green card snafu is being addressed. It never should have happened in the first place.

    lee (55777a)

  52. i think it’s interesting how murderous terrorist refugees what hate jesus, bacon and working for a living are now the new face of immigration instead of dreamy dremitos y dremitas like Pedro and Maria Leticia

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  53. Can a President impose what is in effect a de facto ban on immigration of a group of aliens based on their nationality or place of residence?

    I think this is what is coming at the end of the 90 day period of reviewing the current procedures in place, and substituting for them a regimen of “extreme vetting” that might in many respects make it practically impossible for applicants from certain countries to get approval consistent with the standards established.

    And 1152(a)(1)(B) clearly authorizes the Admin. to impose different standards with regard to applicants from different countries. There’s nothing illegal about saying that an applicant who is a citizen and resident of Poland has to clear a much lower bar in terms of vetting than an applicant who is a citizen and resident of Yemen.

    I’m going to post his hypothetical on the different threads that exist on this topic, and invite responses:

    In March 2017 there is an outbreak of a new and virulent strain of Ebola Zaire virus — 90% mortality rate, airborne transmission. 50,000 new cases are being diagnosed a week.

    Pursuant to 1182(f), President Trump orders that there be no entries for residents of the Democratic Republic of Congo for a period of 90 days, during which time public health officials are to determine whether meaningful controls can be put in place in the US to prevent an outbreak of an Ebola Zaire pandemic in the United States.

    After 90 days, the CDC and Sec. of HHS report to the Pres. that one necessary component of a comprehensive plan to protect the US public against the outbreak of a potential pandemic of Ebola Zaire is to require all applicants for immigrant visas from the Congo to provide verifiable public health records showing they were vaccinated against Ebola Zaire within the last six months, and this record must be certified as authentic by the highest public health agency in Zaire and a World Health Organization recognized NGO. Pres. Trump agrees, and the Sec. of State establishes immigrant visa application procedures which include within the review process the requirement of the vaccination record.

    But at the time the Sec. of State establishes this requirement, there is no available vaccine for the Ebola Zaire virus, so its impossible for any applicant to provide a vaccination record as required.

    The Sec. of State has “discriminated” against residents of the Congo in creating a different procedure for processing immigrant visa applications, and that is within the scope of the exception to the “non-discrimination” language of Sec. 1152(a)(1)(A), so that seems to be on solid ground.

    And he initially acted under Section 1182(f) so that public health officials could “determine the procedures” for processing immigrant visa applications.

    Can someone give me an analysis — legal or otherwise — that if Pres. Trump acted in this fashion in response to a virus outbreak, why is he not able to act in this fashion in the face of what he deems to be lax and ineffective vetting standards for nationals or travelers from 7 specific countries identified as having governments which have sponsored terrorism?

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  54. If Sally Yates doesn’t tender her resignation by the end of the day, Trump should fire her immediately, have her escorted from DOJ, seize her credential and suspend her access.

    A President cannot have the Attorney General refuse to defend Administration policy in court. She doesn’t have to like it. If she can’t in good conscience defend it then she has to resign.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  55. I was shocked to find that this Sally Yates pussyhatter did in fact NOT go to harvard

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  56. @55. As an Obama ‘hold over’ she likely might have known her future was in doubt so she may just have seen an opportunity to fall on her sword to splash a little blood on Caesar’s robe rather than pull an Eliot Richardson exit. Regardless, it puts the President in the uncomfortable position of being at odds w/his acting Attorney General until Sessions is confirmed– or he goes into Manhattan executive mode and fires her– which will inevitably get the media chattering away with memories of Nixon and the ‘Saturday Night Massacre.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  57. Mr. Sessions gets confirmed tomorrow Mr. crew.

    And there will be much rejoicing.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  58. I would still fire her tonight if she doesn’t resign.

    Which, if Sessions is set for confirmation tomorrow, she might very well do.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  59. if sally yates really really wants to do these foul-smelling and murderous suicide bomber refugees all up in it then her present job is only going to take her so far

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  60. It’s more prog theater produced for the media, and “15 minutes of fame” for Yates. But IMO, having even the potential for a Sally Yates type dealio would have made it smarter and more prudent for the admin. to hold off on signing that immigration EO for a day or two until the day the REAL AG, Sessions, is confirmed and in charge of the Justice Dept.

    elissa (ceae36)

  61. i don’t think pussyhatter sally is really all that much of a for reals player here, unless you watch *way* too much cable

    i think it’s useful for Mr. Trump, how pussyhatter sally emphasizes for the children how nastily and reflexively partisan and terrorist-loving the corrupt lardbutt loretta DOJ had become

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  62. @59. Wish granted.

    President Trump has fired Sally Yates.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. Yates has been relieved by Dana boente, a career justice official, most trcently the us atty for Virginia’s eastern district

    narciso (d1f714)

  64. Sessions is NOT set for a confirmation vote tomorrow — only a Judiciary Committee vote.

    His confirmation vote won’t come until next week at the earliest.

    So Yates should be fired.

    Late today she has apparently explained the basis for her directions as that she doesn’t believe the EO policy is “wise or just.” She is not asserting that she’s being asked to defend a policy she believes is unconstitutional.

    This is really unprecedented, and Trump should “Apprentice” her ass. I’d call her to the Oval Office, have a press pool camera there, and fire her on live TV.

    Really, this is tantamount to mutiny/treason IMO.

    He was elected by 50 million people. She was elected by no one.

    shipwreckedcrew (a8ab2b)

  65. Excellent.

    elissa (ceae36)

  66. @65. He did. She’s gone.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  67. The sad thing is that Sally Yates was a career justice official. I didn’t know here, but I knew other AUSAs in the Atlanta Office. She started around the same time I did in the early 90s, as an AUSA. She rose through the leadership ranks of that office (ND of Georgia), and was eventually named US Attorney early in Obama’s first term.

    After Loretta Lynch took over for Holder, Yates was named Dep. AG.

    A really pathetic way to pick to go out.

    Probably planning a run for office in Atlanta.

    shipwreckedcrew (a8ab2b)

  68. Someone should do a tick-tock on how long it takes for the Nixon-Saturday Night Massacre analogies to surface in the media.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. One starts to wonder why O’Connell has allowed this much fahrting around on this key nomination. Get ‘er done!!

    elissa (ceae36)

  70. Via Patterico at the Jury and Spicer’s Twitter, she was fired and Dana Boente is the new Acting AG.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Guess who’s getting the messaage loud and clear:

    Putin.

    And China.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  72. A correction, bissonette, not hair was the sole shooter last night, he supports bloc quebecois and leper, allegedly

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. Carlson win the Nixon pool.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. @68. Not with her looks. There’s more afoot w/her here.

    She knew what she was doing. Likely priming herself for a bigger office run down the road.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  75. Leper bloc quebecois and the new democratic party

    narciso (d1f714)

  76. Bingo!! Maddow goes to Saturday Night Massacre!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  77. Doesn’t count. Mitchell was a real AG, confirmed by the Senate.

    nk (dbc370)

  78. pathetic pussyhatter flames out

    what was her name again

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  79. The media has bitten on the Nixon bait and taking the run, hook, line and sinker.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  80. According to aphrael, at the cool kids’s table, Yates was also Senate confirmed (as Deputy AG I assume).

    nk (dbc370)

  81. Just a case of the Mondays,

    narciso (d1f714)

  82. Boante is an interesting choice.

    I’m sure the WH didn’t trust anyone else who is a Main Justice holdover from Obama. They would have all been picked by Holder/Lynch/Yates over the past few years.

    But as a practical matter, they needed someone who was geographically close, and could drive into DC tomorrow morning to occupy the office of the Attorney General and keep people to their tasks.

    So Boante is right there across the river in Alexandria. While he was nominated by Obama to be the US Attorney, back in 2007 during the Bush Admin., the US Attorney for the EDVA had picked Boante to be his No.2. He then heldover as acting after Obama took office, and remained for 18 months. Holder then named him to be acting US Attorney in Louisiana to clean up some ethical problems with the leadership in that office, before he eventually came back to be the Acting US Attorney in the ED Va again.

    So he’s been appointed by both GOP and Dem Administrations to serve as US Attorney, has been with the DOJ for 30+ years.

    Probably as good an option as the WH had on such short notice.

    shipwreckedcrew (a8ab2b)

  83. Appreciate the update nk, but I’ll stay here where there’s real debate and no worry about hurt feelings.

    NJRob (43d957)

  84. “Really, this is tantamount to mutiny/treason IMO.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    Weren’t you a lawyer, at one point? That’s a bit melodramatic, even for a prosecutor (sorry, Patterico).

    Leviticus (70ca80)

  85. Yates was senate confirmed as Dep. AG, but she was only appointed by Trump as Acting AG — he had every right to fire her.

    He could fire a Senate Confirmed AG too. Confirmation isn’t some magic shield from getting canned for insubordination.

    shipwreckedcrew (a8ab2b)

  86. The cool kids dont see the forest for the trees.

    Firing her was a message to Putin, China and even ISIS.

    Like Reagan whacking the ATC strikers.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  87. the forest is all the trees mushed together

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  88. 85?? Really???

    What happens next week when 400 or 500 DOJ lawyers decide they are going to begin prosecuting cases based on what they personally think is “just” or “right”????

    Next that bleeds over to EPA and Interior. Their guys have guns. You know that, right?

    Maybe the EPA gun toters are told by the EPA scientists, “Hey, mind guarding the doors while we download data before we quit?”

    The FBI comes around to check on a tip about unauthorized access of computer systems, and now you have a stand-off between some true believer EPA investigators, and former Special Forces guys who are now FBI agents.

    Sure, its all hyperbolic, but the point is that the government structure WILL BREAK DOWN when top officials in charge of whole departments simply decide to do what makes them feel good rather than doing their jobs.

    shipwreckedcrew (34b90e)

  89. The actual press release announcing the firing and appointment is posted here:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/01/breaking-trump-to-acting-ag-youre-fired.php

    elissa (ceae36)

  90. the new one is much better

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  91. It’s going to be hilarious to watch Obama f*ck up Trump’s incompetent pseudo-presidency simply by exercising the Constitutional right that Trump hates the most: free speech.

    Leviticus (efada1) — 1/30/2017 @ 3:25 pm

    Weren’t you a lawyer, at one point? That’s a bit melodramatic, even for a prosecutor (sorry, Patterico).

    Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/30/2017 @ 6:49 pm

    Aren’t you in school to become a lawyer Leviticus? Care to explain your bit of melodrama above?

    NJRob (43d957)

  92. I meant for the parallel to Mitchell, SWC.

    nk (dbc370)

  93. Former President Obama is encouraging people to protest at airports– but then, he flies by private jet no and isn’t subjected to the hellish hassles and inconveniences he endorses.

    “Isn’t that special…” The Church Lady, Saturday Night Live

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  94. I always like the airport protests.

    Yesterday the protesters in Dallas occupied the baggage claim areas.

    So arriving passengers who just want to get their luggage and get in a cab, or get to their car and go home, look around at all the people obstructing them from getting on with their day.

    Who do you think they blame, Trump or the protesters??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  95. The first immigration and naturalization act was repealed by Congress when they implemented the second one. None have been repealed since.

    If there are lots of items in the US code that are no longer law, why isn’t there a big effort to delete these items from the code? Because it might be useful for it to remain and it might be useful for it to be deleted depending on how situations evolve according to someone’s agenda?

    Jcurtis (78cd0c)

  96. i heard little justin has personally started a terrorist refugee underground railroad for so his syrian terrorist friends can do their jihad on america and President Trump and his illegal executive safety rules can suck it

    this is how you get on a postage stamp

    well it’s one way anyways

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  97. Smash thought Snowdon was captain America, when he was more Luke hydro’s it guy

    narciso (d1f714)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3483 secs.