The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
The Chief Justice Takes On the President
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

When Donald Trump became president, he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce federal laws “faithfully.” James Madison, who was the scrivener at the Constitutional Convention, insisted on using the word “faithfully” in the presidential oath and including the oath in the body of the Constitution because he knew that presidents would face the temptation to disregard laws they dislike.

The employment of the word “faithfully” in the presidential oath is an unambiguous reminder to presidents that they must enforce federal laws as they are written, not as presidents may wish them to be. Earlier this month, Trump succumbed to Madison’s feared temptation, and last week, a federal judge corrected him. Then an uproar ensued.

Here is the back story.

Federal immigration laws, as well as treaties to which the United States is a party, require that foreigners who are seeking asylum here may enter the United States across any border they can reach, whether at a designated portal or not. If they have not entered through a designated portal, they can be brought, without a warrant, to a portal for processing.

The feds must process all asylum applications from migrants who make prima-facie cases for asylum. Once an application has been made, the feds may release the migrant (as President Barack Obama did) into the general population, or they may detain the migrant (as President Trump has done), pending a trial before a federal immigration judge.

At the trial, the migrant has the burden of proving worthiness for asylum. That worthiness can be based only on government animosity toward the migrant or government failure to protect human rights and enforce property rights in the home country. If the migrant prevails at trial, asylum is granted, and a green card is issued. If not, deportation follows.

On Nov. 9, President Trump issued a proclamation directing the Border Patrol to deny entry to all migrants, including those with legitimate asylum claims, unless they come through government portals where Border Patrol personnel are present to address their applications. Though this sounds reasonable, it directly contradicts federal law, which expressly permits migrants to enter the U.S. anywhere.

When groups of migrants challenged Trump’s order in federal court in San Francisco, Judge Jon Tigar prevented the government from complying with the president’s proclamation. The judge did not make any value judgments, nor was he critical of the president’s motivation. Rather, he ruled that the law is clear: Immigrants seeking asylum may enter anywhere, and the president cannot change federal law; only Congress can.

Trump dismissed Judge Tigar’s ruling as meritless because the judge was appointed to the bench by former President Obama. The implication in Trump’s words was that Judge Tigar ruled against him for political reasons. In reality, Judge Tigar did what any judge would do; he prevented the president from changing federal law and required him to enforce the immigration laws as Congress has written them — and to do so faithfully.

ORDER IT NOW

Trump should not be surprised when judges rule against him when he takes the law into his own hands. He cannot close the border without an act of Congress and a lawful withdrawal from two treaties. He cannot refuse to accept asylum-seekers based on where they enter. He cannot use the military to enforce immigration laws — his own secretary of defense called this a “stunt” — without violating other federal laws.

Judge Tigar did not necessarily inject his personal ideology into his ruling (any more than the “Trump judge” who ruled for CNN and against the president did last week); he merely applied long-standing federal law. There is no room for ideology at the trial level. I know that personally from my own experience as a trial judge in New Jersey.

Shortly after Trump publicly blasted Judge Tigar, Chief Justice John Roberts came publicly to Tigar’s defense. The chief justice announced that there are no Obama or Trump or Bush or Clinton judges, just hardworking defenders of the Constitution. That comment was met by two more from Trump, who disputed it directly.

Who is correct?

There is no question that many federal judges are nominated by presidents because of shared views on public policy. But though this is ordinarily the case for appellate judges and, in the modern era, is always the case for Supreme Court justices, it is rarely the case for trial judges, of which Judge Tigar is one.

Trial judges do not make public policy. They apply statutes as written by Congress, pursuant to precedent as set forth by the Supreme Court and the intermediate appellate court to which they are subject.

Yet we know that there is a kernel of truth in the president’s accusation and that there is a kernel of tongue in cheek in the chief justice’s contention. Surely, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would view Judge Tigar’s ruling more favorably than Justice Samuel Alito would. Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee, would probably interpret the law literally, and Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, would probably give the president some wiggle room.

Yet the spectacle of the president and the chief justice disputing constitutional values is not a happy one. Here’s why. Under the Constitution, the three branches of the federal government — legislative, executive and judicial — are equals. Yet the judiciary has the final say on the meaning of the Constitution and the laws. The judicial branch is anti-democratic. Federal judges shouldn’t care what the public thinks. Their job is to apply the Constitution and interpret federal laws as they have been written, come what may.

For these reasons, federal judges and justices have life tenure. They do not need and should not seek public approval. And they should not enter public disputes — other than by their judicial rulings — for by doing so, they can appear as political as those in the other two branches.

Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, Supreme Court 
Hide 35 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[274] • Disclaimer says:

    “Trump should not be surprised when judges rule against him when he takes the law into his own hands.”

    Lol. What a farce. Please point out to me where in the constitution Marbury vs. Madison is. Oh, wait. They just made that up and gave themselves that power. I guess the logic they use is that it’s “implied.” Why is it then these people haven’t used the implied meaning of the 14th amendment to stop birthright citizenship? Oh, wait. Because that would stem the flow of future democrats, that’s why. No logic need apply.

    And wasn’t it the chief justice himself who rightfully pointed out the Supreme Court illegally assumed a power that it didn’t have to force gay marriage? Whatever. Don’t be surprised when the people decide they no longer want to obey an illegal, unelected, illogical court packed with Ivy League scumbags who rule by dictate whenever they feel like it. If the president and the states have to assume emergency powers to prevent invasion, I’m fine with it. Federal courts make up powers for themselves whenever they want, so we get to do the same.

    Guys like Napolitano will be the death of us all. He debates semantics and preaches constitutional restraint while the left made it clear long ago that they don’t care about any of that; they’ll do whatever they want whenever they want – make up laws, use laws against their enemies, overthrow democracy through chain migration, ban speech they don’t like, racially discriminate through affirmative action, enact a police state….

    This guy fights with one arm tied behind his back while his enemy comes at him with everything they have, no holds barred. How noble Napolitano. But who will sing this guy’s praises when the left gets back in charge and removes all his freedoms as they were on track to do under Obama?

    Whites. SMH. Pathological altruists and social climbers, all of them. They only care about maintaining respectability among their upperclass social peers.

    “Blah blah blah congress changes the law.”

    You mean like the time a federal judge ruled a law banning female genital mutilation unconstitutional? Congress apparently has power when it either does something or doesn’t do something the Ruling Class wants. The courts adjust the laws in accordance to their preference. It’s a parlor game – a ball-n-cup scam. You have something only until someone doesn’t want you to have it; the illusion of freedom. Disgusting.

    Frankly, the system Napolitano supports is undemocratic, immoral, and unworkable. And it should be abolished. Lifetime appointments for people who 1) disproportionately don’t represent the people 2) make up powers for themselves 3) are nearly impossible to remove 4) get lifetime appointments 5) are appointed based on their politics … yeah, that has to go. That’s not democracy. That’s a vehicle for Ruling Class authoritarianism – with only a thin veneer of democracy present…until you want to exercise it.

    The job of a guy like Napolitano is akin to a priest justifying the infallibility of the pope during the Middle Ages, even after it is clear that the man has done something to disprove the notion – selling indulgences. It isn’t to employ logic but to justify the reigning, unjust, order which he benefits from.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Corvinus
  2. Unless one has a heart of stone, any law school student is thrilled by the profundity of the law, of the over 800 years of thought and reason that have gone into developing this method of conflict resolution that is the law. Unless one is deaf, dumb and blind, anyone who goes on to practice law knows that as it works out, law is a dirty, corrupt, ignorant and often quite stupid affair. When I stopped practicing law, not one lawyer ever asked my why I stopped. Not one! Ever! They all knew why I stopped and admired me for it.

    Judge Napolitano takes the law school approach to the law: It is a magnificent edifice–theoretically. Justice Roberts is just making propaganda since he is the Godfather of the legal profession in the US. Trump, a civilian in the law racket, states the truth. He knows it; Napolitano knows it; Justice Roberts knows it. Roe v Wade? Citizens United? Bad law is made by politicized judges. All judges are political appointees. Need I say more.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter, Them Guys
  3. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    This article is another example of Mr. Napolitano’s shameless cheerleading for Washington’s priestly (lawyer) class. The rulers in robes in his civics class are always presented as a higher order, any criticism of their rulings as a threat to a sacred system under which “there are no Obama or Trump or Bush or Clinton judges, just hardworking defenders of the Constitution.”*

    “Yet the judiciary has the final say on the meaning of the Constitution and the laws.” Says who? How can a purported expert write a 1,000 word essay on this topic, yet make no mention of Marbury v. Madison?

    ——

    * That term “hardworking,” often as “hardworking men and women,” has become cliche’ among those wagon circling for the Establishment. It’s shorthand for “How dare you? Get back to work … hard!”

  4. Realist says:

    For these reasons, federal judges and justices have life tenure. They do not need and should not seek public approval. And they should not enter public disputes — other than by their judicial rulings — for by doing so, they can appear as political as those in the other two branches.

    Federal judges and justices don’t just appear political….they are political. There are most definitely liberal judges and conservative judges. Or as Trump put it Obama judges, Trump judges and Clinton judges.

  5. user_s says:

    What if there was an invading army, and the ACLU, or whoever, sued on their behalf because they are “asylum seekers”?

    What if some oh so non political judge rules on their behalf?

    What if the President will be constitutionally bound to allow them to invade until they have seen a judge?

    What if they skip the court date and just get on with the invasion?

    What if they win the war and get rid of The Constitution since its just a piece of paper and they don’t speak English anyway?

    Answer: Freedom.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  6. You said it judge, “federal judges and justices … do not need and should not seek public approval”. Yes, we live under a judicial dictatorship. Until some president goes “full Andrew Jackson” and tells the Supremes, “shove it”.
    It’s more than time we amended the constitution to provide for the recall of federal judges, like California has for its Supreme Court judges.
    Judges can always vote their policy preferences and ignore the law. They can come up with rationalizations for their decisions. Rose Bird, California Supreme Court judge always found a reason to conclude the death penalty should not be applied. If my memory serves me correctly, she did this 62 times in a row.
    Are you familiar with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., judge? He could explain legal reality to you
    Who are you kidding judge? We should not live under the rule of the faculties of Harvard and Yale law schools.
    Where is it written “the judiciary has the final say on the meaning of the Constitution and the laws”? Madison v. Marbury is not in the Constitution.

  7. The former judge’s statement that trial judges are not politically appointed is pure bullschiff and he knows it. Jerry Brown nominates demos & rinos to the trial courts and appeals justices are always appointed from the trial court judges pool – always. It is likely the same in other states. No politician appoints competitors to anything.

    And it is clearly true that justices vote according to their politics twisting words as best they can. To say otherwise is, frankly, a lie Napolitano. A lie and you know it or should know it.

    This was my last read of anything you ever write again.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  8. In the Department of Justice filing on 25 October with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, by an ex-DOJ employee, on a history of alleged crimes involving Robert Mueller in his past role as FBI director, with Mueller said to have taken part in the bribery of two US federal judges in Virginia, as they all joined in apparently cheating millions out of a Hillary & Bush donor –

    One gets a picture of the USA legal system that is utterly harrowing, with major US law firms laughing and gloating with a four-word phrase that seems to encapsulate US judicial corruption in a nutshell:

    Bribed American judges, motherf-cker!

    The DOJ filing and its impact is covered in a recent Henry Makow article, suggesting that because that file can send Robert Mueller before a grand jury and even to prison if Trump’s lawyers ‘go nuclear’, there may be a ‘Mexican stand-off’ brokered by the US intel agencies, where Mueller keeps his mitts off the Trump family, and in return the DOJ filing is not deployed in full strength, forcing Mueller to resign, and with a new Special Prosecutor appointed to prosecute Special Prosecutor Mueller

    It’s notable in the past week, that President Trump did tweet a picture of Robert Mueller behind bars … no doubt Mueller got the message:
    https://twitter.com/The_Trump_Train/status/1067687857400229888/photo/1

  9. Tusk says:

    The law is so logical that any citizen who walks to America and claims asylum is instantly granted rights by American laws. American laws are surely powerful, exerting their power on citizens of other nations simply because they want to come into America.

  10. Anonymous[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Great post.

  11. ” by doing so, they can appear as political as those in the other two branches.”

    Appearances being more important than reality.

    What if 68 million swamp the system?

  12. klokman says:

    This is where I quit reading Napolitano. It was bad enough some of his history was pub-ed propaganda.

  13. Herman says:

    The reasoning of judge Napolitano lacks precision, and there is an agenda behind that lack. When he says that governments animosity toward someone is a sufficient reason for asylum, “animosity” is the wrong word. Only persecution by the gpvernment is a sufficient reason for asylum. “Animosity” has a too broad meaning; you can e. g. say that the US elite has a certain animosity against the US white working class, but that would not be a reason for emigration. Napolitano then goes on “worthyness (for asylum) can be based …on government failure to protect human rights and enforce property rights”. That means the inhabitant of any state where criminality is higher than in the USA has the right to immigrate.

  14. News flash Judge Nappy– We not longer live in a functional Constitutional Republic, and haven’t been living in one for quite some time. You , as a judge in the Quilombo State of New Jersey, were/ are in a far better position to have recognized that from a long time age than most others.

    Yet you insist on insulting our intelligence by continuing to crank out your Civics lessons using the Dinesh D’Souza method.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  15. densa says:

    Judge, the comments have been better than the post.

    The feds must process all asylum applications from migrants who make prima-facie cases for asylum. Once an application has been made, the feds may release the migrant (as President Barack Obama did) into the general population, or they may detain the migrant (as President Trump has done), pending a trial before a federal immigration judge.

    Horns of a dilemma. Release the alleged asylum seekers into the country to never be seen again, or keep the poor little children locked up in camps like Hitler. Hmmm.

    Judges should not pretend to be POTUS from the bench. Tigar claims that “Immigrants seeking asylum may enter anywhere….” Yet if they are detained in camps, the same judges rule that violates their rights. Thus, this San Francisco judge’s ruling is the same as saying we have no means of enforcing our borders. They are not being turned away fast enough or in numbers enough to discourage the next million from coming.

  16. I like this part, “President Trump issued a proclamation directing the Border Patrol to deny entry to all migrants, including those with legitimate asylum claims….”

    How can Judge Napolitano suppose that those migrants had “legitimate asylum claims” before those claims were even subjected to “a trial before a federal immigration judge”?

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  17. @ThreeCranes

    “How can Judge Napolitano suppose that those migrants had “legitimate asylum claims” before those claims were even subjected to “a trial before a federal immigration judge”?”

    Because the Judge uses Magic Pomade on his pompadour and it leeches into his brain.

  18. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “Please point out to me where in the constitution Marbury vs. Madison is. Oh, wait. They just made that up and gave themselves that power.”

    You are woefully ignorant.

    Article III of the U.S. Constitution–Section 1

    “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

    Naturally, if a Supreme Court is created, it has authority. And the Marbury case enabled the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionally of laws.

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137

    “Don’t be surprised when the people decide they no longer want to obey…”

    That is remote possibility.

    “an illegal, unelected, illogical court packed with Ivy League scumbags who rule by dictate whenever they feel like it.”

    Actually, the Supreme Court is legal who makes logical decisions.

    “Federal courts make up powers for themselves whenever they want…”

    That would be Fake News on your part.

    “so we get to do the same.”

    First, who is this “we”? Second, why are you having a temper tantrum as an adult?

    “He debates semantics and preaches constitutional restraint while the left made it clear long ago that they don’t care about any of that; they’ll do whatever they want whenever they want – make up laws, use laws against their enemies, overthrow democracy through chain migration, ban speech they don’t like, racially discriminate through affirmative action, enact a police state….”

    Here is a virtual brown paper bag for your hyperventilating.

    “Frankly, the system Napolitano supports is undemocratic, immoral, and unworkable.”

    Wow, just wow. You really enjoy Fake News.

  19. Corvinus says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    News flash Jim, we live in a functional Constitutional Republic despite major issues that threaten its functionality.

  20. KenH says:

    Nobody should be surprised that Judge Avenappy took the side of RINO Justice John Roberts over President Trump who is acting in good faith in trying to prevent undesirables from entering the nation to commit crimes and get on welfare. And most importantly, to vote Democrat as soon as Kamala Harris wins the presidency and grants them amnesty.

    The U.S. Supreme Court said in 2004 in U.S. v. Flores-Montano, “The government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border.” In this particular case Trump isn’t preventing the “migrants” and phony asylum seekers from entering although he has every right to do so. He’s only limiting those places to designated ports of entry which he has the authority to do based on this SCOTUS case and many others over the years.

    Therefore, the Obama judge who issued the temporary injunction is indeed ruling in accordance with left wing political ideology rather than previous legal precedents upholding the executive branch’s plenary power over who (which aliens) can come into America. If a Democrat president issued a similar EO it would have been upheld or the courts would have refused to hear it and it’s obvious left wing judges (and a few bleeding heart centrist judges) are attempting to thwart Trump any way they can.

    It should be noted that “judge” Napolitano, for all of his claims about hewing to the Constitution and rule of law, morally supports the totally illegal sanctuary cities around the nation and has been mum on the judicial activism that recently ordered Trump to restart DACA which is totally illegal under current immigration laws and a classic example of legislating from the bench.

  21. Them Guys says:
    @user_s

    I read a Short News Feed for an article about 3-4 weeks ago. It stated that when the Caravan of invaders entered into Mexico, the Mexican Govnt agreed to offer the caravan aliens Sanctuary and Jobs as asylum seekers etc. And that news feed stated that the caravan illegals Refused all such offers and claimed they instead planned to go all the way to America.

    As far as I a aware of, If anybody from anywhere is seeking asylum then they Must seek it at the very First safe port or entry of first nation they arrive at. They are Not allowed to claim asylum, and pass thru as many countries or cities until they arrive at one they prefer better. Plus no true asylum claim can be made for any issues of gang violence or too many armed robberies in home nation. Those are Not sufficient as a claim for true proper asylum.

    Their and their lib lefty supporters favorite cry’s and claims of “But they just want a better life” Or “A Better Job”…Do not cut it for asylum claim reasons.

    • Replies: @PJ London
  22. Them Guys says:
    @Jim Sweeney

    Seems that ever since Prez Wilson, back in 1912 or so, appointed the first Jewish Justice to us supremes ct. Most fed judges, and state court judges also probably, have been using the Talmudic Technique in rendering decisions that comprise several hundred pages of psycho babble that makes little to zero sense. They even found a special ability to “See” and “Read” wordings that nobody else is able to see nor read in the bill of rights and us const. Roe Vs Wade is prime example of invisible ink only fed judges are able to “read”.

    They then use stari decisis (sp?) and claim precedence of prior cases. Then ACLU type commie lefty orgs flood courts with many same cases. This creates a huge number of precedence decisions. Yet if very first case decision was wrong, adding another 50 wrong precedence decisions doesn’t make it correct or right. Now you just multiply a bad wrong ruling by compounding it with 49 more bad decisions. That Ruth Bader lefty clown is very adept at such idiocy.

    I have read of and heard of from actual persons that got charged in some felony crime like a gun law case. Where in a Fed Court the Judge told defense attorney and jury both, that in no way will he allow defendant or his lawyer to state any mention of the 2nd Amendt. During the trial and as any defense of himself. WTF is that about? IIRC this happens often in fed tax evasion cases too. Fed Judge wont allow any mention of how there are No specific IRS Laws to mandate fed taxes etc.

    I read of this in an article by a famous lawyer who has won many IRS tax cases in favor of defendant. He stated in article that somebody did an experiment and mailed an official request to IRS agents asking the IRS to Quote the specific fed law that mandates fed taxes be paid etc…It was sent to about 50 different IRS agents, and he got 49 Different answers! Only One answer was correct, which admitted NO such law can be quoted since no such law exists. Also when those other 49 IRS agents were told of the 49 different answers, each of those agents stood by their statements as legit and correct. Obviously nobody can comply with any law that can have 49-50 different meanings.

    So the likely outcome will be you get busted and get a hundred+ page judge decision that makes zero sense even to a 90 year old lifelong Talmud Trained Rabbi.

  23. PJ London says:

    Reading the comments one does not know whether to weep or vomit.
    It is obvious that none of them have any clue as to the nature of the Constitution or the law. Napolitano clearly laid out both the actual law regarding entry and the law regarding asylum. Yet because the commenters do not like the laws, they blame Napolitano and the Judge who simply was following the law.
    Trump is an idiot who does not have enough gumption to run his orders or even his tweets past a person who can or will tell him, “You are being stupid and you are going to look stupid when you get reversed.”
    The USA has entered a period of ‘Lawfare”. The fact that the Dems got away with unlawful and unConstitutional activity for years is not their fault. It is the fault of the Conservatives who did not fight them and hold them to account. Now when Trump wants to emulate Barak and then gets hammered by the law, conservatives scream “Foul”.
    Why on earth Trump does not have a “Napolitano” in the white house and ensure that his utterances are cleared before he makes them exposes him as a fool.
    The media is, as he knows, joyfully exposing his every faux pas.
    For goodness sake get advice and follow you Dotard.

    • Replies: @densa
  24. PJ London says:
    @Them Guys

    I used to think that the “First point of safety” was a law, but it is in fact only an agreement within the EU. Part of the Schengen agreement. Other countries may or may not have such agreements with their neighbours.
    The point being that should an Asylum seeker fail in their application, USA does not have to return to their country of origin, merely to their country of entry, IE back to Mexico.
    The rules or basis for determining ‘True Asylum” is decided by each country and in fact each judge. There cannot realistically be an absolute standard as a ‘Crime’ has not been committed against the person claiming it, merely their fear of a crime. (“Women get raped in my country”, ‘But you are a man’, “Yes but I identify as a woman”)

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  25. densa says:
    @PJ London

    That’s a fair enough criticism regarding following the point of law. I am not a lawyer and will not take the time to make a case in this case, but my reaction is based on judges setting federal policy. My layman’s understanding is that law has a hierarchy to it, with the Constitution at the top. It does not place the 9th Circuit at the top. He can question federal policy and have it reviewed, but he’s vetoing the president’s ability to act as the executive, which seem like a power too are. Yes, I agree that congress should revisit the laws on asylum. In the meantime I’ll support Trump’s attempts to finally shut down the assault on our borders and sovereignty.

    Looking down on the commentariat hasn’t shut us up yet and is unlikely to as our “betters” have made a hash of running this country.

    • Replies: @PJ London
  26. PJ London says:
    @densa

    ‘but he’s vetoing the president’s ability to act as the executive’
    ****
    What they are saying is that the President has to act within the law.
    Not even the President can act outside the law otherwise he becomes a dictator.
    That is why there are three branches. The President’s job is to execute the laws of the land, not make the laws.
    It so happens that usually the President is also the leader of a political party, but in the case of Trump he has no political clout or capital, so no-one supports him except the (deplorable) people.
    Generally the Party implements the laws given to them by their purchasers.
    “I think I can say, and say with pride, that we have legislatures that bring higher prices than any in the world. ~ ”
    Mark Twain
    but Trump does not owe anyone except perhaps the military and the Jewish faction that did not strongly oppose him.

    • Replies: @densa
  27. densa says:
    @PJ London

    Generally the Party implements the laws given to them by their purchasers.haha.

    Yes, the courts seem to be overruling this president in particular because they don’t like him.

    I looked at the Executive Order:

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) (INA), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367) (Secure Fence Act), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208 Div. C) (IIRIRA), and in order to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the United States as well as to ensure that the Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:

    Section 1. Purpose. Border security is critically important to the national security of the United States. Aliens who illegally enter the United States without inspection or admission present a significant threat to national security and public safety. Such aliens have not been identified or inspected by Federal immigration officers to determine their admissibility to the United States. The recent surge of illegal immigration at the southern border with Mexico has placed a significant strain on Federal resources and overwhelmed agencies charged with border security and immigration enforcement, as well as the local communities into which many of the aliens are placed.

    and

    Sec. 11. Parole, Asylum, and Removal. It is the policy of the executive branch to end the abuse of parole and asylum provisions currently used to prevent the lawful removal of removable aliens.
    (a) The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to ensure that the parole and asylum provisions of Federal immigration law are not illegally exploited to prevent the removal of otherwise removable aliens.
    (b) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action, including by promulgating any appropriate regulations, to ensure that asylum referrals and credible fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1125(b)(1)) and 8 CFR 208.30, and reasonable fear determinations pursuant to 8 CFR 208.31, are conducted in a manner consistent with the plain language of those provisions.
    (c) Pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the INA, the Secretary shall take appropriate action to apply, in his sole and unreviewable discretion, the provisions of section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the INA to the aliens designated under section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II).

    And when I went to Cornell Law to find out about asylum, I found this:

    l8 U.S. Code § 1158 – Asylum

    (a) Authority to apply for asylum
    (1) In general
    Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

    Which is why everyone is sneering at this president who thinks he is above the law. But read on:

    (2) Exceptions
    (A) Safe third country
    Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

    Apparently our president is negotiating with Mexico to allow return of faux asylum seekers, which seems fair since Mexico is facilitating this siege of our southern border. Reading on I find:

    (3) Limitation on judicial review
    No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

    And under Conditions for granting asylum, in general, eligibility we find:

    (C) Additional limitations
    The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).
    And once again:
    (D) No judicial review
    There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(v).

    • Replies: @PJ London
    , @Them Guys
  28. PJ London says:
    @densa

    Trump stated that Aliens who entered the country illegally and not via the border would not be eligible for asylum. which is in direct contradiction to the law.

    That is what was ruled unlawful.

    ‘The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph’
    ***
    is a direct contravention of
    ***
    ‘Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section …’

    • Replies: @densa
  29. Them Guys says:
    @PJ London

    But there are actual legal requirements to establish if it is a true asylum case or not. I do not now recall those definitions as per us fed immigration laws but I do recall reading articles that stated the Few legit reasons for an actual legal asylum claim to be approved as such. And I also do recall those articles pointed out that various crime threats etc do Not qualify. Nor does any claim for asylum based on a claim of seeking a better job or better life qualify for true asylum.

    Those articles also explained that anyone seeking true asylum must take what is offered at very first nation that grants asylum. They cannot simply reject it to go on to a different nation they may prefer better like usa. Sort of like, Beggars Cannot be Choosers.

    Many maybe most of those caravan clowns have been lefty Marxist commie brain washed and now act more like a street pan handler who is begging for handouts. Then when a passerby tosses .50 cents or one dollar bill into his beggars cup or hat, the angry bum panhandler complains it is not enough free money! And today that bum has dozens of well funded non profit lefty lib and Jew orgs, that fully back up the bums complaints and demands he should get much larger free handout cash. Soon, if not stopped, those lefty lib and Jew commie orgs will get loony laws passed that make it a fed crime to give less than $20 per handout of free cash to Bums and Panhandlers. With Hate crime laws attached to better prosecute the kind hearted persons who give less free cash to the Bums.

    Perhaps a better solution is to have usa border cops or us Army at border, Shoot a few of the more radical, militant, and violent Illegal Invaders. Just a few would send a huge message loud and clear in every foreign language, that the free pass lefty policy has Ended. Illegal Invasions are an Undeclared Act of War, and should be treated as such. Mexico shoots illegal alien invaders at its southern border zones.. Mexico also puts them in Prison if caught there illegally and for 2-3 yrs of jail time. Yet Mexicans and their officials cry big tears like some huge victim if an American even tries to discuss enforcement of fed laws to halt invaders. Maybe we need to let rifles do our talking for a change see how it works. If fed & state gov’s do not soon fix it, sooner or later private armed citizens will likely do so I predict. And sooner is probably better.

    I also predict that if these invading hoards is not soon fixed, we are going to see massive waves of Real USA citizens begin to refuse to obey laws too. And when a large enough portion of the citizenry refuses to obey laws they disagree with, it will fast become impossible to arrest and charge such disobeyers. Next will come total law chaos. Then it is anybody’s guess how it ends. Especially when you see like as happened during hurricane Katrina In New Orleans, when over half of local police threw badges in dirt and walked off job. Then citizens really got wild. That will happen nationwide once the ball gets rolling. And many fed up folk think it cannot happen soon enough. Invest in Rope maker stocks may be a good bet, eh.

    • Replies: @PJ London
    , @PJ London
    , @densa
  30. Them Guys says:
    @densa

    Densa, thanks, good law info you posted up. Like I prior stated, asylum has specific law or legal requirements invaders Must follow. Simply claiming that an invading illegal alien seeks better life or better jobs don’t make the grade for asylum claims. But Booting them Out sure does make that grade and fixes the problem.

  31. PJ London says:
    @Them Guys

    There is a difference between applying for Asylum and being granted Asylum. In fact the court may refuse all Asylum cases on any basis that they wish. They probably will, and I am fine with that.
    The point that Napolitano made was that the President must follow the law.
    He cannot prohibit someone from doing what is allowed by law.
    He cannot ‘pre-judge’ the outcome and both the individual and the government may appeal any finding by a judge.
    What one should do about the invasion is something else.
    Trump is an idiot when he says “I am sending the Army to the border.” What he should have said is that he was sending Army engineers to the border. He opened himself to having CNN or someone ask the pentagon, “Will you fire on women and children crossing the border illegally?” Of course the Pentagon said ‘No.’ and this allowed, just before the mid-term vote, the headline “Pentagon refuses Trump orders!”
    Totally dishonest, very effective, and utterly stupid on the part of Trump.

  32. PJ London says:
    @Them Guys

    In response to “Asylum” seekers.
    The ‘Articles” are a ‘guideline’ for countries they are not laws. Any country may make any laws they want regarding “Asylum’. including “We do not allow any asylum.” The only response is that other countries say that they are “Mean”.
    If the country signs and agreement between countries than that agreement or treaty is in effect but without a binding agreement then there is no responsibility to allow asylum.
    ‘ Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted in 1948, guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries. Subsequent regional human rights instruments have elaborated on this right, guaranteeing the “right to seek and be granted asylum in a foreign territory, in accordance with the legislation of the state and international conventions.”’
    Note “in accordance with the legislation of the state”
    It is not universal and it is not the same for all countries.

  33. densa says:
    @PJ London

    It’s from the same law. Look at the Cornell link.

    l8 U.S. Code § 1158 – Asylum

    (a) Authority to apply for asylum

    It contains 3 paragraphs:
    (1) In general
    (2) Exceptions–Ag determines another safe county, i.e. Mexico
    (3) No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

    This 90-day order lets our president negotiate with Mexico regarding our ability to return those denied asylum. The president and his AG have made a reasonable condition to being considered from asylum, that due to the current volume, you should get in line with those at the ports of entry where we can try and provide hearings for 7 billion should they choose to come. And, the president has legal superiority to the 9th circuit (which should be reviewed for impeachments) to set immigration policy and to protect us from the multiple threats including terrorism posed by an open border. Those are within his purview not Tigar’s.

    • Agree: Them Guys
  34. densa says:
    @Them Guys

    Thanks for your #30 comment. I agree that if the border had been protected by the military from the beginning of this, if a few invaders had been shot, we wouldn’t have any of this problem. But the constant shrinking from the most basic function of a sovereign state has created an endless demand for more and more rights for the world at the expense of citizens. Every illegal allowed entry is now a tax on a citizen as their rights expand and ours shrink.

    These last two years of the “resistance” have changed how I feel about being a citizen of this country. It does seem more and more likely that chaos is in our future.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
  35. Them Guys says:
    @densa

    densa: I agree and we see it eye to eye it seems. I am next month going to be 66 yrs old. Until very recent times, like within past decade or so, have also changed my view and outlook on calling myself a 100% pro American and patriot. Prior it was basically my only reply if asked. That Yes indeed am 100% America, Period.

    However with all I have learned in the past 20 years, from WWI & WWII Lies and especially holohoax lies, and discovering about real true Jew Truths etc….I guess I’d now say that, and this huge illegal Invaders issue is probably what really pushed me to the edge, is that I now only consider myself as a Pro America patriot based upon a couple issues. #1 If I were much younger I’d likley re-learn to speak fluent Polish like I was able to until grandma died when iI was age 16-17 yrs old and simply stopped speaking in Polish too. Then even more likely is I’d try life in Poland or maybe better yet also learn Russian since it is close to Polish language with some words being exact same meanings.

    And if after a 6-12 month trial run, if all went swell in either nation, Id be hard pressed to remain in usa….I’d keep American citizenship if possible for one never knows the future and it can change for better in usa. So I’d want a right to return as a full citizen here if it got better.

    In other words at my age now I am simply too old to do anthing other than remain in usa untill dead. I feel I’m Forced to remain Pro American etc due to age and no choice other. But prior to a decade or so ago, Id have told you that No matter What! I am pro usa and will stand and fight to bitter end if need be to defend it. But knowing what I now know, especially on how corrupted by Israel & Jewry both My/Our Nation has become, and worse yet, has been since turn of century at around 1900 era…I cannot in good honest concience be so proud and a staunch usa defender. All things considered, no sane awake American can any longer state that they…Stand by America as I recall it said when younger. That being, how It is My country and America Right or Wrong. Sorry, but far too many wrongs have occured in past 100-125 yrs..Longer yet if we include Civil war 1860 era acams and lies too.

    I feel sorry for younger folks, and boomers with kids or grandkids..I have No kids and daily thank God for that!…I am really bewildered as to just What are folks with kids or grandkids going to answer when that inevitible question gets asked of…”Gee Mom & Dad or Grandpa & Grandma, Why with so Many well armed citizzens due to 2nd amendt, and what is written in Declaration Of Indep. about throwing off bad govnt and replacing officials etc…WHY did you all do NOTHING real or solid to fix the fuckin nation before it turned into a #2 version of the 1917 Russia, Jewish Bolshevik Revolt against European and Christian White Folks?”

    I too feel guilt even though have zero kids. Yet with barley 1 in each 500-1,000 persons truely awake and Jewised Up today, WTF can we few really do? Other than get killed off by some SWAT team in cahoots with deep state and Jew commie state, or end in prison for rest of life?

    When younger such concerns are still there, but seem to matter less. But at My age as well as it seems, most awakened folks ages, to end up in prison for even a month, is same as a Death sentence. Once at these late stage ages not many guys can survive a life behnd bars. We’d end up Dead from lack of proper med care, or from being beaten to death or knifed by some radical Mexican or Negro which inside jail walls repesent vast huge majorities and White guys equal 10% at best.

    Even those who do survive will either remain inside for life, based on orig sentence, or get new cases due to had to kill an inmate in self defence. Believe me, being around Detroit Biker guys my entire life since age 14 yrs old…I knew many guys that get a 5-10 year orig sentence, ended up in dire life vs death fights and had to kill another inmate. Then never mind any legit self defense claim. They get re-sentenced for murder or weapons or both, and get 25 to life added on.

    The very few who lived to see release from prison, by then were very old guys, 65 to 75 or older yet! And had zero chances to make a new start, and most such guys ended up as very scarey type, almost an insane psychopath type after so many yrs behind bars. Death would probobaly be better by far.

    I also think that this feeling of far too few awake, combined with fewer yet willing to really do a fix job no matter what it takes.. Creates the worst of all feelings involved in this daily viewing and experiencing Americas Ruination and Wrecking. It feels at times like a genuine Curse to have seeked and found these factual Truths, eh. Overall I guess it may be a real blessing to be older guys now, for we old guys likely will not see the final end of America. Pitty the young though, their future usa if they are White is going to be a litteral Hell nation. And even fewer of them are 2nd amdnt wised up nor armed at all it seeems. Todays youth will probably vote to end all gun rights in usa once we old guys are gone. Myabe even sooner when we are still alive!…It will never fly if attempted too soon tough, This is believe fully. I wont relinquish My 2nd amdnt for anyone or anything. Death before disarming is our old guys creed.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS