Biblical and Constitutional Politics
Executive Order on Immigration
By Gary F. Zeolla
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday January 27, 2017 banning immigration from counties with a history of terrorism. As soon as the ink was dry, the leftist media began its attack on it.
Let the Sob Stories Begin
Just as I knew would happen, the leftist media is trumping (pun intended) every sob story it can find.
Yesterday (Saturday, 1/28/17), CNN and MSNBC gave wall to wall coverage of a dozen Middle East immigrants being detained at JFK Airport. It was probably due to their coverage that protests began, first small, then growing into a large crowd, being incited by the media using terms like: chaos, confusion, fear, panic, and a half-backed policy. As a result, the media is creating news rather than just reporting it.
CNN only took time from that coverage to find a poor looking woman in the Middle East who had been prevented form boarding a plane, bound for the United States. A CNN report held a sob-filled interview with the woman through an interpreter. She just wanted to come to the United States to make a better life for herself. In the midst of the interview, they showed a picture of two adorable little girls. But they never said who the girls were, but it would be assumed by the viewer that they were refugees who had been prevented from coming to the USA.
But what they are not reporting is that the vast majority of refugees and others from the banned countries are 20-30-something men, who were raised under Sharia Law. They thus have no concept of freedom, especially of freedom for women.
Preference to Christians
The leftist media is also in a tizzy over Trump giving preference to Christian refugees over Muslim refugees. But what they will not tell you and have not been telling you is that a campaign of genocide has been occurring against Christians in the Middle East, the birthplace of Christianity, for the past eight years. Meanwhile, less than one percent of the refugees who have migrated to the USA have been Christians.
The reason for that is Christians are scared to stay at the UN refugee camps, as they know they will be persecuted by the Muslims in the camps. But it is form those refugee camps tha the immigrants to the USA are drawn. Thus under Obama we have been letting in Muslims who would persecute Christians in the refugee camp, while not letting in Christians who are being persecuted both in the Middle East and I the refugee camps.
See the following articles for details on this genocide and the media’s ignoring thereof:
Aletia. The reality of Christian Genocide in the Middle East.
Townhall. Media Ignores Ongoing Genocide of Christians in The Middle East.
The Immigration and Nationality Law
But I will give credit to CNN for its coverage of the legality of the executive order. The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prevent the order from taking effect. But they interviewed a lawyer, who correctly pointed out that the President does in fact have the authority to issue such an executive order. He is simply enforcing a law passed by Congress in 1952. It has been updated at various times since then, most recently in 2013.
Here is the full text of the law, if the reader is a lawyer who can wade through a bunch of legalese: Immigration and Nationality Law. The most relevant portion is Chapter 2, Act 212. Following are excerpts from this section. These excerpts concern not just immigrants from the Middle East but also from Mexico and Latin America, as I am sure we will be hearing sob stories next about Hispanics denied admission to the USA. It will be seen that Trump is in fact just enforcing the law by his executive order. But I encourage the reader to read this entire section if not the entire law as there are exceptions to many of these clauses that I will not be quoting. Bolding added:
a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States: …
(G) 2b2cFOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM- Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is inadmissible.
(i) IN GENERAL.-Any alien who-
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity,
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years, is inadmissible.
An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity….
(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party.-
(i) In general. -Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible….
(ii) Participation in genocide. - Any alien who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible….
(5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants.-
(A) Labor certification.-
(i) In general. - Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed….
(A) ALIENS PRESENT WITHOUT admission or parole.-
(i) In general.-An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible….
(i) In general.- Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible….
(9) 12ALIENS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED.-
(A) Certain aliens previously removed.-
(i) Arriving aliens. - Any alien who has been ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) or at the end of proceedings under section 240 initiated upon the alien's arrival in the United States and who again seeks admission within 5 years of the date of such removal (or within 20 years in the case of a second or subsequent removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an aggravated felony) is inadmissible….
B) 13ALIENS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT.-
(i) In general.-Any alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence) who-
(I) was unlawfully present in the United States for a period of more than 180 days but less than 1 year, voluntarily departed the United States (whether or not pursuant to section 244(e)) prior to the commencement of proceedings under section 235(b)(1) or section 240, and again seeks admission within 3 years of the date of such alien's departure or removal, or
(II) has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more, and who again seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien's departure or removal from the United States is inadmissible….
(C) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.-
(i) In general.-Any alien who-
(I) has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than 1 year, or
(II) has been ordered removed under section 235(b)(1), section 240, or any other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted is inadmissible….
(A) Practicing polygamists.-Any immigrant who is coming to the United States to practice polygamy is inadmissible….
(D) 17UNLAWFUL VOTERS-
(i) IN GENERAL- Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is inadmissible.
Chapter 4 of this law then provides for the removal of illegal aliens. That will be important when President Trump begins deporting illegal aliens, starting with ones who have committed crimes in addition to entering the country illegally. In fact, Act 236A is on “Mandatory Detention of Suspected Terrorists.” Then Act 237 outlines “General classes of deportable aliens,” which includes ones who have committed crimes, with the specific crimes requiring deportation indicated.
The President's Authority
The President’s authority to act as he sees fit in this matter is granted by U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182:
(f) 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 (Cornel University).
This statute is clear, and thus Trump without doubt had the authority to issue this executive order.
Despite these laws passed by Congress clearly giving the President the authority to issue such an executive order, late Saturday night, a New York federal judge issued a stay on the order.
Federal Judge Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn, N.Y. granted a request by the American Civil Liberties Union and issued a stay late Saturday on the deportations of valid visa holders after they have landed at a U.S. airport. The ruling by Donnelly temporarily blocks President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration signed Friday….
The stay will last until a court hearing is held on the merits of this case brought by the ACLU and other legal organizations. It applies to "all people stranded in U.S. airports," according to a statement by the ACLU. They say the stay will affect 100 to 200 people detained at U.S. airports or in transit (NPR. Federal Judge Stays Deportations, Blocking Part Of Trump's Immigration Order).
But this is only a temporary stay. And once proceeds through the court system, as the lawyer on CNN confidently asserted, the Trump administration will win.
Now I will admit that clarity needs to be made to the law, but it did include provisions for those who were in transit when the order was issued. They were to be detained, vetted, then released if they passed the vetting. And that is in fact what was happening before the judge intervened, with two of the detainees at JFK Airport already having been released. And in the end, the executive order will be upheld. In fact, DHS is so confident of this fact that they will continue with enforcing the ban:
The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement early Sunday saying that they plan on continuing to “enforce all of the president’s executive orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.”
The DHS said the court order would not affect the overall implementation of the White House order and the court order affected a small number of travelers who were inconvenienced by security procedures upon their return.
DHS also clarified a few points of the order:
Under Trump's order, it had appeared that an untold number of foreign-born U.S. residents now traveling outside the U.S. could be stuck overseas for at least 90 days even though they held permanent residency "green cards" or other visas. However, an official with the DHS said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump's order had been prevented from entering the U.S.
The DHS said in the statement that they “will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism.” They also added that they plan to ensure the safety of the American people by making sure those entering the U.S. pose no threat ((Fox News. DHS will continue to enforce Trump's travel ban).
With those clarifications, DHS will righty continue with its job of enforcing Trumps’ order.
But despite these points, a week later, Friday night (2/3/17), the liberals got a federal judge to side with them, and the order was put on hold. Trump immediately appealed that ruling, and I am sure as it makes its way through the courts, Trump’s order will be upheld. But then:
Early Sunday [2/5/107] morning a federal appeals court denied the Justice Department's request for an immediate reinstatement of President Donald Trump's ban on accepting certain travelers and refugees. The DOJ filed an appeal of a judge’s order temporarily stopping Trump’s travel ban on Saturday night, saying it’s the “sovereign prerogative" of a president to admit or exclude aliens. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco instead asked for the Justice Department to file a counter-response by Monday afternoon. The higher court's denial of an immediate stay means the legal battles will continue for days at least (Fox News. Appeals court denies Trump request to immediately reinstate travel ban).
What this means is what the Trump administration was trying to avoid by instituting the executive order without warming just might happen—terrorists will make a rush into the USA before the executive order is able to take effect again. Thus in the near future, if one of these terrorists in fact commits an act of terrorism, remember, Trump tried to avoid it, but the liberals thwarted his efforts.
Trump President has full authority to issue this executive order. It is in accordance with the 1952 law. Back then, Communism was the greatest threat to the USA. And the law was mainly intended to prevent subversive Communist activity in the USA. Today the greatest threat to our safety is Islamic terrorism, and a threat to our freedom is Muslims who adhere to Sharia Law and want to institute it here. Sharia Law is just as incompatible with the US Constitution as Communism is. Thus both Islamic terrorism and promotion of Sharia Law are forms of subversion that cannot be allowed in the USA.
Yes, there will be a limited number of people who do not fall into these categories who will be affected by this executive order. And the leftist media will parade them before the cameras. But what they won’t show you are the many people who are being prevented from immigrating to the USA who do fall under these categories.
That is why we need “extreme vetting.” We need to know if a potential immigrate has sympathies with Islamic terrorism or prefers Sharia Law to the US Constitution. A person who is either should not be allowed into the USA, any more than an avowed Communist.
The problem is that many Muslims are not coming here to assimilate into the American culture but to try to bring their Islamic culture to it, which includes Sharia law with its lack of freedom. As former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal put it on Sunday’s Fox and Friends (1/29/17), “Immigration without assimilation is invasion.” Or as a tweet quoted on Fox put it, “America is a great melting pot, but many of these immigrants are not melting.”
Immigration is great for the USA, if the immigrants are coming here to be Americans and to abide by American law and the US Constitution. But we can only know that by using extreme vetting on those coming from countries that do not have a history of freedom like we do. Or as President Trump put it, “We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people” (Union Leader. Trump signs order blocking some refugees, prioritizing Syrian Christians).
The Seven Banned Countries
The media and protestors have been abuzz as to why the seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) were chosen for immigrants to be banned from while other Muslin countries were not included in the ban. The short answer to that is the seven countries were not chosen because they were Muslim countries but because they were biggest hotspots of terrorism. And who made this determination was not the just-came-into-power Trump administration but the former Obama administration.
In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries (CNN. How the Trump administration chose the 7 countries in the immigration executive order).
Thus Obama had a similar ban, though not as stringent, but not a peep was heard from the liberal media. There was no fuss, no protests, nothing. Again, it was just the media’s dislike for Trump that caused them to Trump’s similar ban into a major new story.
Moreover, this is important as it disproves the claim that this is a “Muslim ban.” It is not. There are about fifty Muslim-dominated countries in the world. If it was a Muslim band, all of those countries would have been included. It is a ban on immigrants from countries that present a danger to the United States that even Obama figured out were dangerous.
This also disproves the claim that these countries were chosen because Trump does not have hotels or other businesses in them. Again, Trump did not choose them, Obama did. But the Trump administration might modify the list as time goes on and his State Department gathers more information.
Some have also asked why no Christian-dominated countries are the list. The answer is simple: There are not Christian-dominated countries that are hotbeds of terrorism or that present a danger to the United States. It has nothing to do with religion per se in either case. Though it is true that fundamentalist Muslim theology undergirds the actions of radical Muslim terrorists, while Christian theology does not support terrorism.
It is thus disingenuous for the mainstream media to be continually calling these seven countries “Muslim-dominated” countries. The reason they were chose is not that they were Muslim-dominated but because they are harbor terrorists. They should thus be “countries that are hotspots of terrorism” or “state sponsors of terror.”
The media is also saying that no terrorist attacks on the USA have been done by people from these countries. But that portrays the mindset we have had since 9/11 that has failed us miserably. We are always protecting ourselves against last terror attack. By that I mean, after 9/11, we began screening people for sharp objects like box cutters. Then after someone smuggles explosives inside a liquid container onto a plane, we begin banning liquid containers on planes.
And on it goes, always looking backwards. But what Trump is doing is looking forward, trying to protect us against the next terror attack by screening travelers from the countries that today, not years ago, terrorists might come.
All that said; below are further details on each of the seven countries:
The two countries in which ISIS is geographically located. ISIS is an abbreviation for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
An enemy of the United States, one of George W. Bush’s three “axis of evil” countries.
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen
Lawless countries (in other words there is no central government in control) that are prime recruiting grounds for jihadists.
People have asked why certain other countries aren’t banned. It’s because they don’t fall into one of those three categories. For example, although Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country, it’s not lawless, not an enemy of the United States, and not the location of ISIS (Lion of the Blogosphere.
The seven banned countries).
Now personally, I think Saudi Arabia should be on the list, along with Pakistan. And maybe they will be added later. And of course, the Trump administration has access to intel that none of us have access to, so I am sure they will add other countries as need be.
The Number Inconvenienced
After all of the hoopla over the weekend, out of 325,000 people who entered the Unites States, all of 109 were detained. That’s it. 109 people were inconvenienced for several hours then went on their way. All the other problems and delays were caused by a computer malfunction at Delta and the media and protestors themselves.
And that should be it as far as people being unexpectedly detained. Now that the ban is known, people will know before they board in foreign countries for the USA what the situation is here. But as President Trump said, to have forewarned people would have giving the “bad dudes” time to sneak in before the ban started.
All that said, yes, the rollout of the ban could have done a bit more smoothly, but now that the bugs have been ironed out, this enforcement of a long-standing law should keep us safer without any undue inconvenience to potential immigrants to the USA.
Why Do They Hate Us?
Before closing this article, I need to answer an important question. Why do the Islamists hate us? Liberals claim they hate us because of our responses to their radicalism, and that that this travel ban will only increase that hatred. But I have news for the liberals—the radical Islamists already hate us and have been doing so for decades. And they started hating us long before we instituted any counter-terrorism measures against radical Islam.
The first Islamic attack against the United States occurred way back in 1993, when a bomb was exploded in the basement of the World Trade Center. That did not bring the towers down as the Islamists had hoped. President Bill Clinton lobbed a couple of cruise missiles into an empty camp in Afghanistan, and that was the extent of the US response. But despite such a lackluster response, the Islamists went on to bomb two US embassies in Africa, attack the USS Cole, and several other attacks. Again, Clinton made little retaliation. But despite a near nothing response, 9/11 happened.
In other words, not responding to terrorist attacks did not keep us safe but lead to even more serious attacks. Then Obama tried a policy of appeasement, and that did not work, with one attack after another occurring here in the USA and in Europe.
The point is, the Islamists do not hate us because we of how we respond to their violence and extremism. They hate us because we refuse to adopt their radical totalitarian ideology. In other words, they hate us because we are a Constitutional Republic, and that Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The only way they would stop hating us is if we were to abolish the US Constitution and replace it with Sharia Law and force everyone to convert to their brand of Islam.
I for one will never abandoned my faith the Lord Jesus Christ to appease some radicals (or for any other reason for that matter), and I refuse to give up the US Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. And as long as there are freedom-loving Americans, the radical Muslims will continue to hate us.
The best way to stop their aggression would be convert them to the non-violent and non-totalitarian belief system of Jesus Christ. But as long as they continue to follow the violent example of Mohammed and wish to spread the totalitarian Sharia Law, then we need to protect our borders against them. And this travel ban is just one small step in that direction.
The above article was posted on
this website January 29, 2017.
The Addendum was added January 21, 2017.
The Update was added February 5, 2017.
Articles 2017 Articles
Alphabetical List of Pages Contact Information
Text Search Biblical and Constitutional Politics