WhatFinger


Round 2: Handing Trump a political defeat is the only thing that matters to them

Trump signs new immigration EO; pro-terrorist lawyers (and politicians) spring into action



What you're about to find out is that all the hulabaloo about Trump's first immigration order had nothing to do with the flaws in the order. It simply had to do with the fact that it was an order and Trump made it, and that it in any way bent policy to acknowledge radical Islamists coming from certain countries represent a terror threat. The first one was not a Muslim ban. Neither is the second. The first one had problems but was entirely within Trump's scope of authority to implement, and should have been allowed to stand by the courts. The second one is more narrow, more measured, and even more legally sound than the first one.
None of this will matter. The left will run to the courts in exactly the same way, demanding the same outcome, because handing Trump a political defeat is the only thing that matters here:
"This revised executive order advances our shared goal of protecting the homeland. I commend the administration and (Homeland Security Secretary John) Kelly in particular for their hard work on this measure to improve our vetting standards. We will continue to work with President Trump to keep our country safe," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who along with Sen. John McCain, had been an outspoken critic of the original travel ban, congratulated Trump on the new ban, which he said doesn't discriminate based on religion and instead focuses on immigrants from "compromised governments and failed states." "I have always shared President Trump's desire to protect our homeland," Graham said in a statement. "This Executive Order will achieve the goal of protecting our homeland and will, in my view, pass legal muster." But Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer predicted Monday that the improved coordination and narrower scope would have little effect on the new ban's chances in the courts. "Despite their best efforts, I fully expect this executive order to have the same uphill climb in the courts that the previous version had," the New York Democrat said in a statement. "A watered-down ban is still a ban. Despite the Administration's changes, this dangerous executive order makes us less safe, not more, it is mean-spirited, and un-American. It must be repealed."

Support Canada Free Press


In a way, Schumer may be correct. If the courts are going to subject the order to tests that have no basis in law - like giving the State of Washington standing to sue because people living in Washington were inconvenienced by the order - then it may very well meet with the same fate as the first order. Nothing Trump does has a chance if judges are going to ignore the law and simply find pretexts for doing whatever they want. But as a matter of substance, the new order addresses the legal issues that were raised as objections to the first:
The new ban, which takes effect March 16, also explicitly exempts citizens of the six banned countries who are legal US permanent residents or have valid visas to enter the US -- including those whose visas were revoked during the original implementation of the ban, senior administration officials said. "We cannot compromise our nation's security by allowing visitors entry when their own governments are unable or unwilling to provide the information we need to vet them responsibly, or when those governments actively support terrorism," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday. The new measures will block citizens of Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from obtaining visas for at least 90 days. The order also suspends admission of refugees into the US for 120 days, directing US officials to improve vetting measures for a program that is already widely regarded as extremely stringent.

Pro-terrorist lawyers: It's time you start dealing with the real-world consequences of the positions you take and the things you do.

Expect the legal challenges to the new order to focus on what will be called a "lack of evidence" that refugees from the six affected countries have actually committed any acts of terrorism - as if we need to wait until that happens before we can take any action. You might think it's unfair of me to call the lawyers fighting this "pro-terrorist." I do not. Whatever their motivations, the president is trying to make it harder for terrorists to enter this country. These lawyers, along with the entire Democratic Party and most of the news media, are determined to prevent the president from succeeding in this effort. That makes them pro-terrorist, by definition. Don't like me saying that? Too damn bad. It's time you start dealing with the real-world consequences of the positions you take and the things you do.


View Comments

Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.


Sponsored