Sophie, Simply Stated: January 2017

Image result for NO RIGHT TO IMMIGRATION

'I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. ... However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. TODAY, AS NEVER BEFORE, UNTOLD MILLIONS ARE STORMING OUR GATES FOR ADMISSION AND THOSE GATES ARE CRACKING UNDER THE STRAIN. THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS OF EUROPE AND ASIA [AND, AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST - SoRo] will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. ... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.'

- Senator Pat McCarran (D-NV) on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 2 March 1953

So, CAIR is going to sue Trump for 'violating the First Amendment rights' of foreign nationals denied entry into the United States ... or something:

Breaking: CAIR To File Federal Lawsuit Against Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’

Should we tell them?

Since it happened during the Obama administration, Democrats should remember what the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), that Federal law relative to immigration law supercedes any state action, as it 'occupies the field'. In that case, the Court ruled that the Federal government had 'broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1.'

From the birth of this country, the Court has recognised that immigration is both a constitutional and political matter. Constitutionally, the Court has ruled that Congress, not the Judiciary, makes immigration law and thus the courts must defer to lawmakers. It has also consistently recognised that it lacks the 'judicial authority to substitute [its] political judgment for that of Congress' with regard to the various distinctions in immigration policy. Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 798. Pp. 5–11. As the Court held in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537, pp. 543, and reiterated in Kerry v. Din, 576 U. S. ____ (2015), Congress, alone, has plenary power to 'suppl[y] the conditions of the PRIVILEGE of entry into the United States.'

The Court held in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) that even when Congress legislates in areas affecting foreign policy and national security it must mind 'THE VERY DELICATE, PLENARY AND EXCLUSIVE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT AS THE SOLE ORGAN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS – A POWER WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE AS A BASIS FOR ITS EXERCISE AN ACT OF CONGRESS.'

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that an un-admitted and nonresident alien has NO right of entry into the United States and no cause of action to press in furtherance of his claim for admission. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762 (1972). Further, in Kleindienst, the Court 'declined to balance the asserted First Amendment interest of college professors seeking a non-immigrant visa for a revolutionary Marxist speaker against “Congress’ ‘plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens,’ ” id., at 766. Thus, it is pretty clear that a foreign national, who has no right to be admitted into the United States in the first place.

In 2015, the Court - ONCE AGAIN - ruled that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1101 et seq., an alien may not enter and permanently reside in the United States without a visa and Congress has the plenary power to decide upon what basis an alien may enter and, just as importantly, MAY NOT BE GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE OF ENTERING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

And, in the case of immigration and other entry into the United States, such as visa issuance and revocation and refugee admissions, Congress has granted the Executive Branch great authority. As current Federal law states in 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f):

'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.'

Contrary to what CAIR and the Left (along with some on the Right) would have people believe, THERE IS NO 'RIGHT' TO EMIGRATE TO OR ENTER THE UNITED STATES...and I write this as a naturalised American.

And, yes, visas can be revoked and aliens can be detained at point of entry by immigration authorities, the DOJ, and/or DHS. See here, h ere, here, he re.

When the Allies were bombing cities in Germany, Italy and Japan, the United States did not accept German, Italian and Japanese refugees. The Allies, including to a lesser degree the United States, did resettle refugees who were being persecuted, such as the Jews.

Too bad that Arizona was - for the most part - not allowed to do so. Strange how it works: If the Feds do not want to enforce immigration law, the States are prohibited from doing so. On the other hand, if the Feds DO want to enforce Federal immigration law, it cannot illegally commandeer state resources (see Printz) to carry out said enforcement nor can it take each and every Federal dollar. (see Dole). It can criminally charge every official and other individual with illegally harbouring, aiding, abetting, trafficking, etc, an illegal alien...AND IT SHOULD.

Today, we are engaged in military operations (including drone strikes and special forces) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria and Pakistan. In 2015, Special Operation and counter-terrorism forces were deployed in 135 countries. Even if we could 'extremely vet' people from all of these countries, the cost (money, time, effort, resource shifting from other primary missions) would be prohibited...and that doesn't even take into account the cost of resettlement and support, which would be astronomical, nor consider the strain it would put on societal cohesion. It's impossible, which is why the United States has never (well, until Bush and Obama really) thrown open the doors and allowed floods of just anyone into the country.

Like other countries, the United States can mandate that prospective entrants meet one of these three requirements: 1) the immigrant has the personal resources to support himself and his dependents; 2) the immigrant has secured employment prior to applying for a visa; or 3) American citizens or permanent residents have agreed to sponsor said immigrant and be responsible for him. In other words, a potential immigrant had to be able to support himself and his dependents and not be a drain on the purse or economy. Most countries still operate under similar rules. For example, Special Snowflakes in America, who swore to leave after Trump's election, have been shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you - to learn that they just cannot pick up, pack up and move to Canada. No, they are discovering that 'Utopian Canada' requires that immigrants not be a burden on its economy and, thus, potential newcomers must show that they 1) have a sufficiently high net worth or own a business; 2) are highly-skilled in an area that is in demand and where there are insufficient numbers of Canadians to fill the slots; or 3) have relatives that are either native Canadians or permanently settled residents that pledge - in writing - to support them.

If leaders like Angela Merkel want to throw out the Willkommenskultur mat to any and all, including those that are sworn enemies to Western values, culture, and political norms, that's on them. If their citizens support such suicidal virtue-signalling, then that is up to them. We do not have to follow in self-evident insanity.

As for CAIR complaining about a 'religious test', this, too, is bullshit. Religion, along with race, national origin, political opinion/ideology, and particular social group, HAS ALWAYS BEEN ONE OF THE SPECIFIC - AND EXTREMELY NARROW - GROUNDS UPON WHICH ONE CAN BE A REFUGEE TO THE UNITED STATES. The same is true for almost every other country in the world. Teddy Roosevelt banned polygamist pursuant to the Immigration Act of 1891. Jimmy Carter put a moratorium on Iranian immigrants and refugees during the Iranian Revolution. During the Cold War, the United States didn't admit Communists. Obama ended the Cuban 'wet foot, dry foot' refugee policy 'effective immediately'.

Last year, former Secretary of State, John Kerry, recognised Christians and Yazidis as persecuted peoples and victims of genocide. These are the type of refugees that have ALWAYS been given priority.

Using CAIR's arguments, the United States - whilst it was participating in the massive bombings of German cities, should have opened its borders and put Nazis or native and 'Aryan' Germans at the head of the line taking precedence over Jews, Gypsies, Polish Christians (3 million were exterminated), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Clergy (tens of thousands of Christian pastors and Catholic priests and nuns were killed in concentration camps), political dissidents, intellectuals, resistance members, etc, who were being slaughtered on an industrial scale.

In fact, CAIR would have argued that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who was a Nazi collaborator and one of the architects of the Holocaust, be given priority refugee status over people in the vein of Dietrich Bonhoeffer even though...

The reputation of Haj Amin al-Husseini among Jews in the immediate postwar period is indicated by the observation by Raul Hilberg that when culpability for the destruction of the European Jews was debated in 1945:

'In all the sessions of the American Jewish Conference and its interim committees, no proposal was put forward for the trial of any specific individual or category of individuals, save one: the ed-Mufti of Jerusalem.'

- Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, 1961, pp. 691

If Muslims truly care about the welfare and safety of their brethren, then why have wealthy Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc, REFUSED to take those caught in the crossfire in Syria? Why must the United States, in particular, and the West, in general, always have to foot the bill for the regressive, barbaric, oppressive, tyrannical Middle East? We will gladly stay away and let them sort things out for themselves. They never seem to want to step up to the plate, which leads one to believe that 1) they don't really care; 2) want the West to pay; and 3) see great future benefits in their 'best and brightest' inundating, destablising, and overtaking the West. And, now, they are strangely perplexed that we refuse to play along. Oh well!

Muslims in the Middle East have absolutely NO constitutional rights in the United States and America has the absolute right, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged on many occasions, to decide who and how many it lets into its territory. If CAIR doesn't like this, they can join their brothers over there.

UPDATE: Mari asked: 'Is the basis of [CAIR's] lawsuit that the executive branch, not Congress, issued this ban?'

No, they are arguing that the EO 'violates the First Amendment rights' of Muslims in the countries that are affected. Those foreign nationals have NO constitutional rights, including those in the First Amendment.

The EO only directs the agencies to enforce current law and current law allows the Executive Branch to prohibit entry on the bases outlined in the INA. Religion has always been one of the grounds that can affect entry, but Trump's EO is not about religion. It focuses on the entry of people from certain countries with terrorist activities and changes to the INA after 9/11 permit such, as the Court ruled in Kerry v Din.

UPDATE #2:

Link

RELATED: Attention Sanctuary Cities And Campuses: Harboring Illegal Immigrants Is A Federal Crime

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Contrasts....

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Curious. Guess What's Missing From Trump's '#MuslimBan'?

Sorry, #CAIR, Foreign Nationals Have NO 'Right' Of Entry Into The United States