​Supreme Court Orders “Shields Down,” Eviscerating Presidential Authority to Prevent Entry of Terrorists

Published on July 28th, 2017

Concerns about the threat of terrorism posed by citizens of countries prompted President Trump to issue an Executive Order to temporarily suspend the entry of citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen into the United States. 

map showing countries on travel ban

These countries are associated with terrorism and/or are unwilling or unable to verify the identities and backgrounds of their citizens.
We must begin by noting that aliens do not have an inherent right to enter the United States.
It is a “No brainer” that admitting aliens whose identities cannot be verified undermines national security.
Trump’s Executive Order is firmly grounded in law, specifically Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f) which succinctly 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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
That statute provides the President, acting independently, with the sole authority to suspend the entry of aliens who are “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Terrorists present in the United States would undoubtedly be “detrimental to interests of the United States.”
That law has been used by previous presidents including Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.
Nearly every news program has described Trump’s Executive Order as a “travel ban” for the citizens of “Six Muslim Majority Countries.”  The media is apparently determined to obfuscate the actual purpose of this Executive Order and has thus failed to refer to that order by its actual name, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court decision inexplicably exempted aliens from the Executive Order who had “bona fide relationships” with close family members or entities in the United States.
Begrudgingly, in its decision, the Supreme Court noted: “the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security” when aliens have no connection to the U.S.
Does that mean terrorists who have relationships in the U.S. are welcome to enter? 

welcome jihad sign
Do terrorists feel welcome?

Lawyers deal with the “scales of justice.”  National Security, however, is not a scale.  National security is not a suggestion or an option but an unequivocal mandate.
The legal attack on Presidential authority to safeguard national security did not end there.
Hawaii Federal Judge Derrick Watson decided that the notion of “familial relationships” should be expanded, as was reported on July 14th by NBC News: Federal Judge Loosens ‘Travel Ban’ Restrictions to Exempt Grandparents, Others.  Here is the relevant excerpt from that report:
U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson wrote in a ruling that the government’s interpretation of those qualifying for an exemption to the travel restrictions is too narrow.
"The Government’s definition represents the antithesis of common sense," Watson said in his ruling. "Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents.”
Watson ruled the government cannot use a main provision of the travel ban to exclude "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States."
Judge Watson decided to delve into familial relationships and blithely ignore national security.
Unbelievably, the Supreme Court agreed with Judge Derrick Watson to expand the familial relationships for persons already in the United States.  Apparently this is not even about citizens but includes aliens already present.  Furthermore, here are the true issues ignored by the media and some judges:
Most terrorists have relatives.  Brothers have convinced their siblings to engage in terror attacks. Consider the infamous Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the deadly terror attack at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.
Sometimes entire families have close relationships with terrorist organizations.
On April 28, 2016, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about the San Bernardino terror attack, “3 people tied to shooter in San Bernardino terrorist attack arrested on federal conspiracy, marriage fraud and false statement charges.” 
Without a reliable means of vetting these aliens to determine their true identifies, there would be no reliable way to know if they truly have relatives in the United States.
When dealing with in-laws and purported members of the extended family, DNA testing would be futile.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling that provided exclusions for aliens with “bona fide relationships” with entities that include schools and employers ignores that a significant number of terrorists have attended school in the United States and/or had jobs that enabled them to effectively embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.
The day before a terrorist participates in an attack he/she is likely to “hide in plain sight” by going to his job or by attending classes.
This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits” of the official report 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
On March 19, 2002, I testified at a Congressional hearing on the topic, “INS'S March 2002 Notification of Approval of Change of Status for Pilot Training for Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi.”  Back then members of Congress, from both parties, demanded our immigration laws be enforced to prevent future attacks.
That was then, this is now:
The July 13, 2017 Breitbart article, Indian Student Pleads Guilty to Federal Judge Murder Plot, included these paragraphs: 

image of murderer of Federal Judge
Yahya Farooq Mohammad, 39.

Yahya Farooq Mohammad, 39, came to the U.S. originally on a student visa. Mohammad was attending Ohio State University when he and three other Muslim men, all of which are foreign nationals, were charged with attempting to send money to a leader of the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda, Breitbart News previously reported.
While in prison and awaiting trial, Mohammad told another inmate of his plans to murder U.S. Federal Judge James Knepp, the man overseeing his court case, according to the Associated Press.
“Family reunification” has been one of the emotional arguments exploited by the open-borders immigration anarchists and now it is being exploited by federal judges and even the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. government must prioritize the safety and indeed the lives of American citizens.  Far too many American families have lost their loved ones at the hands of international terrorists and transnational criminals whose presence in the United States ultimately cost their family members their lives.
These families will never be “reunited.”
Famed playwright, George Bernard Shaw, lamented, “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”
Our government must, once and for all, learn the lessons of the past to prevent future tragedies and carnage.

You are donating to :

How much would you like to donate?
$10 $20 $30
Would you like to make regular donations? I would like to make donation(s)
How many times would you like this to recur? (including this payment) *
Name *
Last Name *
Email *
Additional Note