What if Hillary had won and issued a travel ban? Featured

Photo: KENS Photo: KENS

“Must a government be too strong for the liberties of its people or too weak to maintain its own existence?” – Abraham Lincoln

What if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency and had issued a travel ban against citizens of certain Muslim majority nations, what would the Democrats and their allies in the liberal, biased, pro-Democratic Party, media have said? Instead of jeers as their reaction to President Trump’s travel ban, they would be saying “cheers”. “She is strong on defense, strict on immigration.” It was the Obama administration that had identified the particular nations as potential sources of terrorists. Nobody would have sued her to stop the ban. It is the states where Hillary won that sued Trump – like Hawaii and Washington.
It is unfortunate that the protection of the American people, which President Trump promised during his campaign, has become politicized. Anything that President Trump does has been attacked. If he were to give a thousand dollars to everybody in the United States, he would be criticized: “Why not give a hundred thousand dollars.” And if he were to give a hundred thousand dollars, he would still be criticized: “Why not give a million dollars?”

FEDERAL JUDGES DIVIDED ON TRAVEL BAN
You might not read or hear about this in the liberal, biased, pro-Democratic Party, media, but federal judges are divided on the issue of the validity of the travel ban, which would suspend for 90 days the entry of nationals from six countries, which were pinpointed by the Obama administration, to enable consulates abroad to conduct extensive background checks.
On March 15, 2017, a federal judge in Hawaii, Derrick Watson, issued an order granting a motion for temporary restraining order enjoining President Trump and officers of the United States from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order across the Nation. The judge posed the issue thus: National security is unquestionably important to the public at large, but the plaintiffs and the public have a vested interest in the “free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.” The question is: do the nationals of these 6 countries (and for that matter any country) have freedom to travel to America? Who gave them that right? If so, can citizens of the Philippines living abroad have freedom to travel to America? If their visa applications are denied, will the State of Hawaii sue on their behalf because they have “a vested interest in the free flow of travel”? Many Filipinos have been separated from their families living in the United States. Will the State of Hawaii also sue on their behalf to avoid separation of families?
On the other hand, on March 24, 2017, a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, Judge Anthony Trenga, refused to block President Trump’s revised executive order. Judge Trenga pointed out that the issue was not whether the order “is wise, necessary, under- or over-inclusive, or even fair” but whether the order “falls within the bounds of the President’s statutory authority or whether the President has exercised that authority in violation of constitutional restraints.” He noted that there is no “facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent.” The judge indicated that the court cannot conclude for the purposes of the motion that these statements, together with the President's past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority." See https://www.docdroid.net/zXkmJ4O/sarsour-opinion.pdf.html
Judge Trenga said that “Congress has the exclusive constitutional authority to create immigration policies.” In exercising that authority, Congress has enacted Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which provides:
“(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.”
Congress has already spoken in clear and certain terms. It vested upon the President the power and duty to “suspend” the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as “he may deem to be appropriate”. The law does not say, as “he may deem to be appropriate with the approval of the courts.” The President is the sole judge of when to “suspend” the entry of aliens. The law does not give the courts any say on this matter, otherwise Congress would have said so. Expresio unius, est exclusio alterius. (The express mention of one thing excludes all others). Judge Trenga said that “the President has unqualified authority to bar the physical entry to the United States at the border”.
Five U.S. Court of Appeals judges of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who supported a rehearing en banc (by the full court) of the travel ban case (after a 3-judge panel refused to lift the injunction against the first travel ban) led by Judge Jay Bybee said that President Trump’s Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, “was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency,” and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration.” Judge Bybee emphasized that “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty.” Judge Bybee pointed out that: "We are judges, not Platonic guardians. It is our duty to say what the law is, and the meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign policy, including the decision to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to the President and Congress."
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf?platform=hootsuite

MOTIVE OF LAWMAKER IS NOT A FACTOR IN JUDGING VALIDITY OF LAW
Judges against the travel ban claim that Trump was motivated by anti-Muslim sentiments in imposing the travel ban. They cite Trump’s campaign speeches. Trump clarified in his campaign speeches that what he meant was “extreme vetting” (background check).
The Hawaii judge in his order blocking President Trump’s Executive Order acknowledged that the Government appropriately cautioned that “courts should not look into the ‘veiled psyche’ and ‘secret motives’ of government decision makers and may not undertake a ‘judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.’
The Virginia judge refused to psychoanalyze President Trump for his motives in issuing the travel ban.
If psychoanalyzing lawmakers was allowed, one could challenge the anti-dog eating laws of certain states as unconstitutionally motivated against ethnic origin and race by psychoanalyzing the legislators to unveil their “veiled psyche” and “secret motive” to discriminate against nationals of certain Asian countries.
OBSERVATION: In a letter to the editor of a Hawaii newspaper with Democratic leanings on 3/26/2016, the female writer said that Hawaii Judge Watson was a classmate of former President Obama and that Obama was coincidentally in Hawaii when the Judge issued his temporary restraining order (TRO). But in another letter to the editor of the same newspaper, the woman writer was quick to point out that there is no connection with the issuance of the TRO. As Hamlet’s mother remarked: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Me says nobody is claiming that one plus one equals TRO.

(Atty. Tipon has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School where he specialized in Constitutional Law. He has also a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He placed third in the Philippine Bar Examination in 1956. His current practice focuses on immigration law and criminal defense. He writes law books for the world’s largest law book publishing company and writes legal articles for newspapers. He has a radio show in Honolulu, Hawaii with his son Noel, senior partner of the Bilecki & Tipon law firm, where they discuss legal and political issues. Office: American Savings Bank Tower, 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2305, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. 96813. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Website: www.bileckilawgroup.com. He was born in Laoag City, Philippines. He served as a U.S. Immigration Officer. He is co-author with former Judge Artemio S. Tipon of the best-seller “Winning by Knowing Your Election Laws” and co-author of “Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration officers and lawyers. Atty. Tipon has personally experienced the entire immigration cycle by entering the United States on a non-immigrant working visa to write law books, adjusting his status to that of a lawful permanent resident, and becoming a naturalized United States citizen.)

 

Last modified onTuesday, 28 March 2017 15:48

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.

back to top
×

Sign up to keep in touch!

Be the first to hear about special offers and exclusive deals from TechNews and our partners.

Check out our Privacy Policy & Terms of use
You can unsubscribe from email list at any time