January 29, 2017

Obama Appointed Judge Issues Restraining Order on Trump Exclusion of Muslims

Timothy Birdnow

Here is a despicable abuse of power by the judiciary. A Federal judge has issued a temporary stay on Trump's immigration order.

From Fortune:

"In an emergency hearing in a Brooklyn courthouse, Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York issued a stay of proceedings for part of Trump's executive order, which bars citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—"to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States."

Sending travelers home could cause them "irreparable harm," Donnelly said.

Signed judge's order. No refugees are going to be immediately deported pic.twitter.com/sbfaG7DBt0
- ACLU National (@ACLU) January 29, 2017

The U.S. is "enjoined and restrained from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States," according to the ruling. (Read the full text of the order here.)

The ruling does not allow detainees to enter the country. The judge did not address the constitutionality of Trump's actions, which come just one week into his presidency."

End excerpt.

Needless to say Judge Donnelly was an Obama appointee, elevated to her position in 2014.

The Immigration and Naturalization service is an Executive Branch division and clearly under the auspices of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States. The court has no jurisdiction. Furthermore, these are not citizens,nor are they even legal residents of the U.S. and have no standing. Neither does the ACLU, who brought the suit.

Also, it is interesting to note that this judge failed to act when Mr. Obama opened the floodfates in violation of U.S. law.

In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893) The Supreme Court ruled that The U.S. has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner and to compel a foreigner to leave and that deportation (or refusal of admittance) is not a punishment but a right of sovereignty held by the U.S.

Then there is this:

1) Due Process does not require judicial fact-finding.
(2) Knauff: Π an alien wife of a U.S. citizen. Finding of court was that she was inadmissible and was excluded from entry. The Court classified her admission as a privilege rather than a right and characterized the exclusion of an alien as a fundamental sovereign act "inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”
(3) If entry would be prejudicial and alien is determined to be a danger then reasons can be kept secret as to why alien has been denied access.
(4) "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” (p.47)

So by what right does this judge rule that Trump cannot enforce a ban on immigration from Muslim countries? Trump has the authority of the Commerce Clause on his side.

And what is very pertinent here is Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei. In Shaughnessy the Courts ruled that THEY do not have authority on allowing a resident alien back into the country - only the Attorney General can make the determination.

Held: the Attorney General's continued exclusion of the alien without a hearing does not amount to an unlawful detention, and courts may not temporarily admit him to the United States pending arrangements for his departure abroad. Pp. 345 U. S. 207-216.

(a) In exclusion cases, the courts cannot retry the Attorney General's statutory determination that an alien's entry would be prejudicial to the public interest. Pp. 345 U. S. 210-212.

(b) Neither an alien's harborage on Ellis Island nor his prior residence in this country transforms the administrative proceeding against him into something other than an exclusion proceeding, and he may be excluded if unqualified for admission under existing immigration laws. P. 345 U. S. 213.

(c) Although a lawfully resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to due process, the alien in this case is an entrant alien or "assimilated to that status" for constitutional purposes. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, distinguished. Pp. 345 U. S. 213-214.

(d) The Attorney General therefore may exclude this alien without a hearing, as authorized by the emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to the Passport Act, and need not disclose the evidence upon which that determination rests. Pp. 345 U. S. 214-215.

End excerpt.

This is a clear, unequivocal example of judicial overreach by an Obama appointee. Sadly, given the 4/4 split on the Supreme Court, the case will be decided at the lower court level and this power grab will likely stand.

And of course the mainstream media will portray Trump as the lawbreaker and not the judge. Despicable.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 6 kb.




What colour is a green orange?




17kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.0102 seconds.
33 queries taking 0.0052 seconds, 56 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.