Judge Napolitano Speaks on the 9th Courts Egregious decision on Trumps Executive Order

Judge Napolitano speaks powerfully on the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding the blocking of President Trump‘s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work.”

 

 

 Napolitano said, “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”



“I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president,” he added.

The 9th Courts fantasy theory of legal standing, “injuries” to public universities that result from foreign students and teachers not being able to enter the country give the states standing to sue.

So, the rights of foreigners who are NOT Americans supersede the rights of American citizens to be safe in their own country. 


Moreover, the court held that foreigners with visas have due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even though the precedent it cited applied to people already in the United States. 

So, again the 9th Circuit willfully misapplied the law to fit their own narrative.



The Those due process rights could also be asserted by states on behalf of people in the U.S. illegally or “who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or … institution,” the court held in its ruling.



Let's APPLY that slight of hand logic to actual terrorists... 
 
Hani Hasan Hanjour was one of the four pilots in the September 11, 2001 attack. He flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing over 3000 plus AMERICANS, including everyone on the flight. 



He was in the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission report.   Using the liberal left reasoning of the Ninth Circuit, Hanjour, an actual terrorists who MURDERED thousands of AMERICANS would have due process rights to challenge his exclusion from the United States once he had been granted a student visa.

 

 His relationship with a U.S. “institution”  in this case, an English as a Second Language school in Oakland, California  would have been enough to grant him entry into the United States so that he could commit mass murder, which, he did!

So, the 9th Circuit Court would rather allow a mass murder of innocent Americans entry into the United States, then to allow President Trump the ability to keep Americans safe in their own country. 


Some info re-posted from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/10/ninth-circuit-and//www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/napolitano-9th-circuit-ruling

The Refugee Insanity

muslim refugees imported into America in 2017, enjoy unending welfare payed in full by the by American taxpayers.

We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars spent to fly them over here, feeding them, housing them, educating them, giving them transportation, giving them medical care, paying for their utilities and more; all with no end in sight. All paid for by your tax dollars.

These free loading, anti-western, muslim refugees are placing an undue burden upon hard working Americans. The enormous cost to taxpayers in the decades to come will become staggering to the tune of tens of billions.

American citizens are NOW taking a back seat to immigrants’ needs.

Forget, the liberal lies that NON-American refugees have it so much worse the ANY American families.  LIES, liberal lies...American children, families are suffering much worseand to a greater degree.

 Take these sad numbers into consideration:

America has 1.5 million homeless citizens languishing in this country 24/7. They inhabit cardboard boxes, T-shirt tents, park benches, sometimes sleeping on cold hard concrete, in every major city in America. 

They, homeless, impoverished, sick, disabled, mentally unwell Americans stand on street corners begging for money and eating scraps of food from garbage cans. They face alcohol and drug addiction and violence on the streets. They face psychological displacement and live in fear from police brutality.  In Denver, Colorado alone 10,000 homeless sleep on steam grates nightly trying desperately to stay warm. Some are found, each morning, frozen to death, because unfortunately they were only AMERICANS whose lives are meaningless when compared to muslim refugees. 

It’s sickening to see Americans shiver and suffering on winter nights when the temperatures drop to -10 degrees F.

www.FeedingAmerica.org states:

• 13.1 million AMERICAN children lived in food-insecure households in 2016.
• Twenty percent or more of AMERICAN child population in 30 states and D.C. lived in food-insecure households in 2016, according to the most recent data available. Mississippi (27%) and New Mexico (27%) had the highest rates of AMERICAN children in households without consistent access to food.
• In 2016, the top five states with the highest rate of food-insecure AMERICAN children under 18 were Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, Alabama, and Arkansas.

A sickening 48 million AMERICANS subsist on food stamps and other welfare because they cannot obtain jobs. Every refugee that arrives displaces an American from a job. Every refugee that arrives costs tax paying Americans money that could be better spent on...AMERICAN FAMILIES!!!

A mind numbing 60,000 to 100,000 military veterans lack jobs, lack homes and lack medical care in the United States. What about the needs of our country, our AMERICAN vets and our citizens?

 

One out of four African-Americans lacks a job at a living wage. Along with that, three out of four African-American children arrive out of wedlock and live with single mothers on welfare and entrenched in poverty. Why not “save” our African-American citizens rather than anti-western muslim refugees?

How about the fact that the United States is over $20 trillion of debt? Yet, the liberal nut jobs in Congress want to pile on the debt for people who are not even Americans.   If islam is so great then why aren't the muslim countries helping the refugees? Saudi Arabia REFUSES to take even 1 single muslim refugee.

Do you realize that 13,000,000 MILLION American children live below the poverty level with no hope of escaping the inner city projects? Why in the world is the United States spending money on refugees when our own AMERICAN children are going hungry?

Understand this fact: the citizens of the third world reproduce at nearly a billion children ever 5 years. More muslim babies are birthed into the world annually, then the whole population of the United States combines.  Yet, they refuse to be responsible for their OWN birth rates, their own countries, their own problems. No, instead the flee to America and expect the American tax payer to fund their murderous, blood thirsty, anti-western religion of violence and death.  Tell me, where do Americans flee too once this great nation has collapsed from all the undocumented, untaxed, non-working, refuge hoards? 

Today, Chicago is a killing zone for African-Americans with murders every day of the year and into the hundreds annually. Perhaps, just maybe we should try and solve our OWN problems before letting in a flood of hateful murderous muslims intent on overthrowing Western civilization.  Just maybe, we here in America should take care of our OWN citizens by providing jobs, housing, education and hope to all Americans.

Why must AMERICA save the rest of the world while our own citizens suffer as much or greater than refugees?

While, our cities face horrific infrastructure breakdown and our nation faces sociological breakdown and cultural divisions, America needs to STOP immigration  and focus on Americans first!

The liberal left in Congress and big business want to import 100,000,000 MILLION more refugee immigrants by 2050? 

Not a chance! Why are we taking in all those immigrants when we can’t take care of our own citizen's needs? Give me one reason that could stand the test of common sense for accepting and paying BILLIONS for refugees. Our taxpayer dollars already pay out $10,000,000,000.00 BILLION annually for immigrants. 

At some point soon, we must stop all immigration. We can’t afford it and we’re deeply in debt. It’s fracturing and fragmenting our country into ethnic group chaos, cultural suicide and environmental degradation. America is being overthrown from within by unchecked muslim immigration. It is not a mistake, it is being done with forethought and malicious intent. The globalists who want a one-world-government must destroy America. 

 

They already have flooded the Europe Union with a veritable army of raping, robbing, thieving muslims. The globalist have crippled any and all resistance by European voters. Soon, Europe will be a muslim caliph and the Europeans will be second class slaves or converts to islam. The globalists have now set their sights on doing the same thing to America.  We must stand now and unite or we will become slaves in our own country in our own lifetimes. 

 

Byron York shouts loudly that the Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump's executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional

Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State's claims. 

Point by Point

 

1.Justice Department argued that Robart's restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president's constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and "second-guesses the president's national security judgment" about risks faced by the United States.

2. Judge Robart has no standing, background in foreign affairs of the United STates.  Robart has never been briefed by the intelligence community on conditions in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and the rest. Nor has Robart EVER received the President's Daily Brief.

3.The government argued that a U.S. District Court judge has no legal right to stop a presidential action in which the president exercised his own constitutional power to conduct foreign policy, as well as power delegated by him to Congress in the area of immigration. The political branches of government have plenary authority over those areas, the government argued, citing cases from 1950, 1952, and 1999:

Judicial second-guessing of the president's determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches' plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952) ("[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government."). "[I]t is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien." Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543; see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999).

4. The government argued, "courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the president's prospective judgment about future risks." The reason: "Unlike the president, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process."

5. the Justice Department argued that, specifically in the context of immigration, "the Supreme Court has 'long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.'" "When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."

6. The government went on to add that...Earlier presidents have "repeatedly invoked this authority," the government brief argued, noting actions by Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. The Supreme Court even ruled in 1993 that the president had "ample power" to order a naval blockade to keep out Haitians trying to enter the United States. Surely he has the authority to stop a Libyan, in Libya, from receiving permission to enter the United States.

7. Washington state lawyers argued that Microsoft alone employs nearly 5,000 H-1B visa holders, and that is in addition to those working for Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks in the state. Therefore, the people of Washington State have legal standing to challenge the Trump order.The government responded that, whatever Microsoft's hiring preferences, the law is clear:

The [Immigration and Naturalization Act]'s carefully reticulated scheme provides for judicial review only at the behest of an alien adversely affected, and even then only if the alien is subject to removal proceedings. Under longstanding principles exemplified by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, an alien abroad cannot obtain judicial review of the denial of a visa (or his failure to be admitted as a refugee). It follows that a third party, like Washington, has no "judicially cognizable interest" in such a denial.

In other words, a state cannot stop a president's national security directive to satisfy the wishes of a particularly big business in that state.

8. Washington State also argued that the president's authority under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 to deny entry to "any aliens or any class of aliens" was later limited by a 1965 amendment that "prohibits discrimination in On the larger question of the Trump order's constitutionality, the government makes a very simple point: foreign nationals in foreign countries do not have U.S. constitutional rights:the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." The Trump order, Washington State lawyers argued, along with intent revealed in statements made by candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign, are discriminatory and violate the amended immigration act.

Not so, argued the Justice Department. "This restriction does not address the president's authority…to 'suspend the entry' of aliens, which is an entirely different act under the immigration laws," the Department argued. "An immigrant visa does not entitle an alien to admission to the United States, and even if an alien is issued a valid visa, he is subject to being denied admission to this country when he arrives at the border." Beyond that, the government said, the lawsuit's argument could lead to an absurd end:Washington State's interpretation…would lead to the untenable result that the United States could not suspend entry of nationals of a country with which the United States is at war, which would raise a serious constitutional question about Congress's ability to restrict the President's Article II authority to ensure the nation's security.

9.  On the larger question of the Trump order's constitutionality, the government makes a very simple point: foreign nationals in foreign countries do not have U.S. constitutional rights:

The vast majority of the individuals that Washington State claims are affected by the Executive Order are aliens outside the United States, but it is "clear" that "an unadmitted and nonresident alien" "had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise." Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762; see Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 32. This is fatal to Washington's facial challenges, which require it to show that there is no constitutionally valid application of the order. Even if the state could show a constitutional violation with respect to some individuals — and it cannot — they plainly cannot establish such a violation as to non-resident aliens who are outside the United States and who have no prior connection to this country…The district court's sweeping injunction…conflicts with the basic principle that "an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative." Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982).

  10. To make its case, Washington State lawyers cherry-picked several Trump statements from the campaign to demonstrate alleged presidential intent to deprive Muslims abroad and in the U.S. of their constitutional rights.The Justice Department responded in four different ways. First is the argument that no foreign national in a foreign country has U.S. constitutional rights to violate. Second is that the Trump executive order covers countries previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as terrorist hot spots and is therefore not based on Trump's alleged animus toward a particular religion. Third, the order does not target Muslims specifically. And fourth, and perhaps most importantly, it is not the role of a U.S. district judge to divine the president's motives:Washington State argued that the district court should disregard the president's stated rationale for issuing the executive order because Washington State believed it was prompted by religious animus toward Islam. 

That argument is wrong, and it cannot be reconciled with Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 US. 753, 770 (1972), which held that, "when the executive exercises" immigration authority "on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion[.]" Cf. Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2140 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting that Mandel's "reasoning has particular force in the area of national security"). Here, as another district court has recognized, the executive order undeniably states a facially legitimate and bona fide reason — ensuring the "proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals" and "that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists." Order, §§ 3(c), 5(a), (c); see Louhghalam, Order 18-19. The order does so in part by incorporating a list of seven countries that were identified by Congress — and by the Executive in 2016 — as raising terrorism-related concerns.

 

11. Spiking the football...In fact, while Judge Robart decreed that the interests of Washington State would be harmed by the Trump order, the government argued that the interests of the presidency, and of the Constitution, would be harmed by Judge Robart's decision. "Judicial intrusion on the political branches' exclusive authority over the admission of aliens, by violating the separation of powers, in itself constitutes irreparable injury,"  By the end of the Justice Department's 24-page brief, Judge Robart's, and the state of Washington's, argument lay in tatters.

 

Swedish Police Officer writes about his daily interaction with muslim immigrants

I'm so fucking tired. What I write here below, is not politically correct, but I do not care. What I will speak to you about is forbidden for me to say while I am working as a state employe. If I spoke about these things during my career as a police officer I would face the loss of my career and the loss of my salaries and retirement.

Now, I do not care about all this, I will soon retire after 47 years as a Law Enforcement Officer. I will now detail what occurred to me as a researcher / investigator of serious crimes Squad police in Örebro. It will not harmonize with public perception or other leftist kriminologers perception.

 

Our retirees are on their knees, the schools are filled with  chaos, health care is an inferno, police have been completely destroyed, etc etc. Everyone knows why, but no one dares or wants to speak, because Sweden has always lived on the myth of the magnificent ultimate society that has osinnliga resources. Sweden wants to be in the forefront when it comes to being the only politically correct option in a dysfunctional world. Sweden bends over backwards to deny the destructive behavior of islam, by extension...muslims.

 

Here we go; all in one week. On Monday-Friday this week: Rape, more rape, aggravated rape, assault, rape-again, extortion, blackmail, abuse of judicial procedure, unlawful threats, violence against the police, threats to the police, drug trafficking, aggravated drug offenses, attempted murder, rape-for the 3rd time, rape-again, extortion back and beatings.

 

Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohamad Mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christoffer ... huh, it is true. Yes a Swedish name crept into the outskirts of a drug offense, Mohammed Mahmod Ali, again and again, countless...endless muslim names.

 

Countries representing the week all crimes: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown country, unknown country, and 1 Sweden. Half of the suspects, we can not know for sure because they have no valid papers. Which in itself often means that they lie about nationality and identity.

 

Now we talk only Örebro. And these muslim crimes occupy our investigative capacity to 100%.

This is simply one week in one town in Sweden since the muslim invasion began...

 

NOT a muslim Ban

Last Friday, Trump issued an executive order that banned citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US. The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump's executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration.

 

Lets be honest for one second. Put aside rhetoric, emotional arguments, and lets simply look at the facts. 

 

On Friday afternoon, a US District Court judge in Washington state ruled that the combined cases put forward by Washington and Minnesota provided evidence that the executive order has caused immediate harm. (To who? Show me, quantify your remarks)  Judge James Robart also said that the lawsuit has substantial likelihood of success in challenging the constitutionality of the order, the Seattle Times reported.

Robart asks DOJ's Bennett how many arrests of foreign nationals there have been from the 7 countries since 9/11. (Answer: ZERO) She says she doesn't know.

— Sydney Brownstone (@sydbrownstone) February 3, 2017

On Monday, Ferguson became the first state attorney general to file a lawsuit against Trump, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and high-ranking Trump administration officials; on Wednesday, Minnesota joined the suit as a plaintiff.

In their complaint, the states argued that the executive order “was motivated by animus and a desire to harm a particular group,” and that “the discriminatory terms and application of the Executive Order are arbitrary and cannot be justified by federal interests.” As such, the order is unconstitutional and violated the visa-holders’ rights, they said. (The facts do NOT support this statement)
Robart’s restraining order covers the whole country for at least two weeks until the preliminary injunction hearing.
 

My question is... 'Who has President Trump's executive order has harmed?'  All it did was put the brakes on open immigration till proper vetting procedures are put in place, only for countries with KNOWN Islamic terror problems.  Who exactly was harmed?  Was anyone shot, killed, murdered, beheaded, thrown off buildings for being gay? (Nope, sorry that only happens in islamic countries in the middle east) 

 NO, people were simply detained for further questioning.  Lets look at the 7 countries, which were identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration.  In February of 2016, the Obama Administration selected Libya, Yemen, and Somalia Iran, Syria, Iraq and Sudan to be placed on a list of "countries of concern," which placed some restrictions on Visa Waiver Program travel on those who had visited the countries after March 1, 2011.
 

What the liberal press and rouge judges are not saying is that there are many other Muslim-majority countries not included in the ban.

 A total of 46 Muslim-majority countries that are not in this seven. Approximately 1.1 BILLION muslims are not in ANYWAY part of this "countries of concern," restrictions on Visa Waiver Program travel.  

  
You don't hear that from anyone in the main stream press.  If President Trump was actually enacting a muslim ban don't you think those other 46 countries, 1.1 BILLION muslims would be on that list?  The truth is the far left liberals are framing the story as a David versus Goliath, with poor innocent muslims caught in the cross fire.  Again, this is all LIES...sound bites and spin on the part of the Democrats. 


The truth is the Trump Administration is simply enforcing previously existing travel restrictions put in place by obama in 2016.  Yet, NO where are you going to hear the truth. No where in the liberal press OR from Left leaning Judges (Judge James Robart) who are abusing their power by denying this nation the right to protect it citizens from dangerous islamic terrorists. 

Do you think that if the United States is attacked by another 9/11 style islamic terrorists operation these liberal judges(Judge James Robart) and the ACLU will be blamed for letting in this blood thirsty terrorists?  No, the blame will fall squarely on President Trump's shoulders for failing to protect America.  Wake up America the Main-Stream-Media is lying through their teeth to further the globalist agenda.  What American's don't hear OFTEN enough is that islam by the very words of the koran has only one goal in mind...the death and destruction of Western society.