Jason Cloninger is a conservative writer, U.S. Navy & Army veteran, business owner, husband of 17 years, father, 2A supporter, & patriot.
President Trump's Executive Order's Purpose
The top priority of the President of the United States is to ensure the safety and security of every American, as well as those who are visiting the United States of America as tourists. Throughout our nation's proud history, the President has had to take the reigns in regards to foreign policy, stopping immigration from nation's that posed a significant threat to the national security of the United States or to her citizens. The President is granted this direct authority and control of the foreign policy of the United States through Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
However, in regards to immigration, the President was also granted direct control of halting immigration from any nation, at a time of their choosing, and can restrict travel for any alien or class of alien from that nation, or group of nations, for a time that they deem appropriate. This was granted to the President of the United States through United States Code 1182, Section 212 (f). This power granted to him by United States statute is as follows:
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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."
President Trump's Executive Order - "EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES" states is purpose as follows:
"The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation."
Terrorists Being Arrested World Wide
The Evidences of Terrorists from Listed Nations is Overwhelming
The list of six high-risk nations listed in the executive order, which the courts so quickly placed a nation-wide and unlimited temporary restraining order (TRO) upon, was vetted and agreed upon by both members of the legislative and executive branches. Even without this vetted list of nations with gaping holes in their vetting processes, corrupt agencies infiltrated by agents of terrorism, war torn nations, or nations who are enemies of the United States of America, U.S. Code Law 1182, passed in 1952 by a Democratic House and Senate said the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States…
As mentioned earlier, section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Evidences of Threats Penetrating Current Refugee & Visa Vetting Processes:
All of the 9/11 terrorists entered the United States legally through our nation's visa program, one of which entered on an F-1 student visa.
580 people have been arrested for terrorism, in the U.S. alone, since September 11, 2001. At least 380 of them were confirmed foreign born, arriving illegally or through visa or refugee program.
- 62 were from Pakistan
- 28 from Lebanon
- 22 were Palestinian
- 21 were Somalian
- 20 were from Yemen
- 19 were from Iraq
- 16 were from Jordan
- 17 were from Egypt
- 10 were from Afghanistan
- 129 remained unknown or unverified
This information was the result of 2016 report submitted by the DOJ Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.
To say that any bad actors who were attempting to gain entry into the United States aren't taking advantage of this poor choice in abuse of judicial discretion by the courts would be a gross under statement. We already have suspected bad actors here being watched by federal authorities, and multiple evidences obtained by FBI raids which indicate plans for significantly greater infiltration. However, those who pose the greatest threats are those who are unknown quantities. San Bernandino was poorly executed, and it still cost a lot of lives. Imagine what could happen if someone with superior training and resources is admitted and organizes an activity at a major venue.
In matters of national security, it is best that the Judicial Branch trusts and assists the President of the United States, by not making decisions based upon ego or personal views. The President acted within the law. He issued an executive order to fulfill his primary responsibility as President of the United States. He was looking after the national security of the United States, the safety and security of all American citizens, and the safety of all of our nation's visitors. This is not an abuse of Presidential powers, and has been performed by every President over the past fifty years. While our nation was built upon three branches to ensure there were checks and balances in case of abuse of power, it was also based upon the fact that all three would operate and consider each other's actions to be in good faith and in keeping with the powers granted within the United States Constitution. This means that we need all of our leaders to work together, and not persist in a hostile or combative stance against one another.
Our nation has proven security holes within our vetting processes for the refugee and visa programs. Both prior to the terrorist attacks on 09/11/2001 and after, we have had numerous terrorists infiltrate both programs within the United States and within our allied nations. To fix these gaping security holes, we need a certain amount of cooperation and consideration of all of our nation's leaders within all three branches. We face a determined enemy willing to sacrifice anything to cause us harm. If a terror attack occurs during these proceedings, these judges will probably shorten their careers. However, the nightmares they will have for the rest of their lives, and the guilt they'll feel about the lives lost because of their actions, will make their career impact pale in comparison.
It takes 30 minutes of research to identify the extent of the infiltration of terrorism within the 7 nations identified by Congress, which were included in "EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES". Also, culmination of statistics of terrorism arrests within our allied countries world wide, who infiltrated through their respective refugee and visa programs, will prove irrefutably that the terrorist organizations of the world are targeting these programs for ways of entry into nations they wish to attack.
TOP TERRORISM ACTIVITY TRACKING DATABASES
President Trump's Travel Restriction Faces New Court Challenges
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
The Courts Took It Easy on the States But Hammered the Department of Justice and the President
This is the first time in our nation's history that a court has ever challenged a Presidential executive order restricting immigration. With the President having complete executive power for the United States of America and control over our foreign policy, including immigration, and the federal law also granting him this power, he is at the peak of the power granted to the Presidency. So, it didn't surprise anyone when the district judge asked the Department of Justice attorney if he felt that the executive order was beyond review and he answered, after a brief pause, "Yes." Never in U.S. history has a court attempted to review this power, as it was always based upon the fact that the President had access to classified information that the courts did not, making it difficult or impossible for them to assess the gravity of the necessity for the President's restrictions.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel again quoted the Supreme Court, adding that, “The procedural protections provided by the fifth amendment’s "due process clause" are not limited to citizens. Rather, they apply to all persons within the United States, including aliens, regardless of whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” They also went on to say, "Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the U.S. Constitution.” However, in order for them to review executive action for constitutional compliance, the executive order needed to impact a person or group of persons protected by the United States Constitution.
The executive order does not affect anyone within the United States. While the executive order was initially misinterpreted by Homeland Security to include all foreign nationals traveling to the United States from these seven countries, it was later corrected to ensure that all green card holders and all existing visa holders who were traveling from these nations were not barred from entry to the United States. This executive order is a temporary hold on all applications and admissions into the United States from these high risk countries until we are able to resolve the gaping security holes in our vetting processes. The 5th Amendment, or any part of the Constitution, does not apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil. These facts were extremely visible to the courts, with regards to the Trump Administrations’s corrective actions following the wrongful enforcement against green card and visa holders, yet the corrections made by the Trump Administration were not considered in the court's decisions.
Let that sink into your mind. No other court has ever questioned the office of the President of the United States whenever temporary immigration holds have been implemented, ever. This means that when immigration was stayed for 6 months, or even years in the case of Cuba, no court questioned the President's powers, both granted to him by Article 2 of the Constitution and by law within 8 United States Statute 1182 (f). So, why did we have rapid, if not immediate, contention within the courts going on today? During a time of the highest level of risk to United States citizens ever, global terrorist organizations which are driven by a radical Islamic ideologically that justifies genocide of all things non-Muslim, one would expect the full cooperation of all Americans to secure our borders and ensure the intentions of immigrants are peaceful and to become American citizens. To delay such an executive order is to place American lives at risk, especially if the risk is as severe as intelligence reports, and global arrests of terrorists world wide, are indicating.
Jurisprudence, to use their own words, means "the theory or philosophy of law". This basically means that "no sane or intelligent lawyer or judge has ever done something this reckless or dangerous before". Any judge which errors on the side of weak logic, or grand standing, instead of on the safety of the citizens of the country for which they are supposed to be exercising jurisprudence, both in good faith and towards doing no harm to their citizens in regards to their constitutional rights and physical safety, is corrupt or reckless. Placing the rights of non-citizens ahead of citizens is not jurisprudence in regards to the U.S. Constitution. Assuming that the executive branch, especially the office of the President, is exercising power not in good faith is not exercising jurisprudence for the United States of America.
The Ninth Circuit Court went on to reject several of the tenuous theories the states of Washington and Minnesota asserted to claim standing to bring this lawsuit. Nonetheless, a three-judge panel of the court adopted one of the novel theories asserted by the state, holding that, “as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the executive order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.” Some of those students are effected by the immigration order. However, with the correction to exclude visa holders and green card holders, who were these violations of constitutional rights occurring to?
You cannot extend rights to anyone who is a foreign national on foreign soil. If they are already a visa holder or a legal permanent resident, they are already able to travel to the U.S. under the executive order and suffer no burdens. So, who are these magical persons that the universities are claiming as students without approved student visas in their possession or without permanent resident status? Why did the courts not place more burden upon the states to prove who these individual were, and what their current status was in regards to their claims? Also, the 9th Circuit Court already has a bad reputation with regards to decisions. The court's nickname is the "9th Circus", and they have an 86% decision reversal rate, so one would image it would be in their best interests to be extremely careful and conservative on a case brought to them involving national security and American lives. So, how do they support, without correction, an unlimited temporary restraining order (TRO) which affects even non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil? You cannot acknowledge that the President's executive order is overly broad as to who it can legally impact, and that the district court judge's TRO is overly broad in that it cannot restrict an executive order for persons that the courts have no jurisdiction over, and then take no action to correct the one thing you have the power and legal obligation to correct.
Did The Courts Abuse Discretionary Powers?
Top Constitutional Attorney in the United States Breaks Down Executive Order and Court Decisions
Where Do We Go From Here?
The President of the United States has several courses of actions. The first being, keep fighting within the courts to get the original Executive Order reviewed by the Supreme Court and hopefully getting the TRO either rescinded, or at least restricted to where it does not allow anyone into the United States who does not already have a green card or an issued visa. The second being, as recommended by Jay Sekulow during his "Jay Sekulow Live" segments, presented daily on Facebook Live and Periscope, on February 9th and 10th. In these segments, he recommends that the President of the United States rescind the original Executive Order and then submit a new one where he specifically enumerates the stipulations identified by the 9th Circuit which they see as Unconstitutional, that those who are traveling in possession of a green card or a prior issued visa will be allowed into the country.
This is probably the course of action that is best for the President of the United States, for the national security of the United States, for the peace of mind of the courts, and for the safety and well being of United States citizens and U.S. visitors. This will allow an Executive Order to be issued that contains all of the stipulations that the courts identified as missing from the initial Executive Order. Now, does this stop the courts, or the States Attorney from Washington State from attempting to also sue the government to put a stay on this new Executive Order? No, it doesn't. However, as the only legal merits identified by the suit issued by the States Attorney in Washington was that the Executive Order could possibly impact those who have green cards or visas issued to them, have been here in the United States, and are therefore protected by our Constitution, it would be difficult for the District Court judge, or the 9th Circuit Court, to argue that the new Executive Order also has the same Constitutional impact. The new stipulations would ensure that the Executive Order only impacts foreign nationals on foreign soil, never having been in the United States legally, which means that they have no Constitutional rights or protections within the United States of America.
© 2017 PrometheusIV
Sound Off For America
BradmastersOCcal on February 22, 2019:
I don't know how I missed this article, but I did.
This was an excellent and I believe accurate article.
The key in this executive order was "temporary" and 90 days is a very short time, and the reason for the EO was as you state protecting the country, and one of the presidents as well as congress to protect the country.
911 showed how a defective national defense system can turn into catastrophe.
The trillions of dollars spent of National Defense were outwitted by 19 terrorists spending only the price of an airline ticket. Not a single shot was fired by anyone.
Putting the country into the Patriot Act during peace time, no war has been declared to invade the people was allowed without any court interference. People thinking that this would make them safer from the terrorists. Ha.
Suzie from Carson City on February 14, 2017:
"Their American Dream," until their parents die~~and leave them nothing because they sucked up their parent's retirement early on.
Arghhhhhhh! At least half of them, who will never drag themselves up to the plate, are in for such a rude awakening & virtual smack upside the head, we should buy stock in coloring books, play dough
frozen dinners & Ramen Noodles......I predict they'll be HOT sellers.
Banned cause of PISSANTS Promisem and Dean Traylor on February 14, 2017:
Well Paula you've done it again! Great feedback. For sure Oregon isn't considered fly over country.
They certainly aren't heartland Americans, you know the basket of deplorables.
More like a basket of unemployables from "fly over the cuckoo's nest" country. Yes, we all should have voted for the candidate of the unemployed, unregistered voters not yet weaned from their parents tit. For these "snowflakes" that is the American dream.
Suzie from Carson City on February 13, 2017:
BTW You're allowed to ignore trolls from Australia & any other country that has no clue whatsoever about the USA, don't live here, pay taxes here nor realize that we do not have nearly as many problems as their own failing nation.
Found this online
From a consultant living in Oregon
While I was getting a coffee in Starbucks, I overheard 7 young people (22-26 years old, 5 males, 2 female) who have been protesting the election in downtown Portland. I told them I was doing research and asked nicely if they would answer some questions. They were okay with it, so I sat down and went for it.
Three voted. Of the four who didn't, none was registered to vote.
None of them researched independently either candidate.
All were for Hillary but preferred Bernie.
Why the Democratic Candidate?
"More things are taken care of."
"Time to have a woman President."
"Democrats aren't sexist or racist."
Six of them live at home.
All are under their parents insurance.
Two have "real" jobs.
Three aren't working nor are they trying hard to find a job either.
Parents pay for everything in their life or subsidize it.
Six get money from mom or dad every month.
Two have been on unemployment for 6+ months.
One is at Portland State U, doesn't work and parents pay for everything.
All seven said Trump is a racist/sexist. I asked to cite proof. "That tape, man!"
When I asked, as a man myself, “Have you ever said anything like that when you've been hanging out with your buddies? All five males said "Yes."
Would you say it if you knew you were on tape? All five answered "No."
What's the difference? I asked. “You've all said bad stuff like that. Does that mean you hate women and are a sexual predator?" Nothing. No answer.
None could tell me how our government works. They didn't know how laws are passed, how the House of Representatives or the Senate work.
None could explain how a bill is passed.
Only one could tell me the difference between legal and illegal immigration. One of them said, "Legal immigration is when you immigrate legally." Seriously.
None could explain the purpose of the Electoral College or how it works.
In 10 minutes they felt they had explained everything. Nice kids but so ignorant. I know some awesome, phenomenal young adults but I'm afraid the majority are like these seven. Too many participation trophies, too much coddling by parents and teachers. In 1944 18 year-olds stormed the beach at Normandy into almost certain death. In 2016 18-year-olds feel unsafe because words hurt their feelings.
Banned cause of PISSANTS Promisem and Dean Traylor on February 13, 2017:
PrometheusIV, I couldn't have said it better myself, you have presented a superb analysis of what is going on par excellence - I commend you. There is no sense arguing with oztinutso, don't waste your time. Glad to have you delete this comment as it is only meant for your eyes, he'll blame you for it if you don't.
PrometheusIV (author) on February 13, 2017:
Killing innocent people? Where are the deaths resulting from stopping people from traveling to the United States from these nations? Also, if not stopping the flow of a compromised vetting process allows terrorists in to kill Americans, how do you justify that?
The evidence is overwhelming that terrorists have already infiltrated countries the world over through refugee and visa programs, because vetting them is impossible for nations which have compromised law-enforcement and/or government, or which have little or no validation methods to prove past criminal or terrorist related activities, or they are enemies of the United States and do not wish to cooperate.
The temporary hold on immigration is only four months, and the extreme vetting process that will be in place will be better than the existing one allowing good and hard-working persons seeking American citizenship in while keeping terrorists out. The courts are trying to rule by their feelings and not by the law, and there are plenty of judges and attorneys supporting this assessment.
Andrew Petrou from Brisbane on February 13, 2017:
Because it's killing innocent people who are not terrorists.
The courts have correctly ruled it's illegal to put innocent lives at risk.