The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Napolitano ArchiveBlogview
The President and Immigration

This past weekend, we all saw massive public outrage in major cities throughout the country. It was directed at the Jan. 27 issuance of an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump, addressing immigration. With the executive order, the president ordered the suspension of entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, as well as anyone from Syria for an indefinite period and anyone from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days.

The crowds of protesters, which included members of Congress, called the president a tyrant. The president argued that he was lawfully protecting the country from those who might facilitate terrorist attacks here. Can he legally do this?

Here is the back story.

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to regulate naturalization, which is the process of becoming an American citizen. It does not expressly give it the power to regulate immigration, which is the process of legally entering the country. From 1776 to 1882, Congress recognized this distinction by staying largely silent on immigration, and thus, anyone could come here from anywhere, with the only real regulation being for public health.

In 1882, Congress gave itself the power to regulate immigration, contending that although the Constitution was silent on the issue, the concept of nationhood gave Congress the ability to regulate the nation’s borders and thereby control who was permitted to enter from foreign countries and under what circumstances.

In response to economic competition from Asian immigrants in California — and in the midst of anti-Asian racial animus — Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which limited the number of immigrants from China for 10 years. In 1892, Congress extended the law for another 10 years, and in 1902, Congress made the law permanent. In 1924, Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act, which restricted entry into the United States through quotas with respect to national origins. The quotas were capped in 1929, reduced in 1943 and substantially expanded in 1965.

In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly authorized the president to suspend the immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons.

The courts have upheld this presidential power because under our system, immigration materially affects the nation’s foreign policy and foreign policy is constitutionally the domain of the president — with Congress’ role being limited to the senatorial confirmation of treaties and ambassadors and to authorization of money for the president to spend. Yet the courts have limited the president’s exercise of this power so that he cannot base it on First Amendment-protected liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, religion and association. So he cannot bar an immigrant because of the immigrant’s political views, religion or colleagues.

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter exercised this presidential power to bar anyone from Iran from entering the country until the hostage crisis was resolved. In 2011, President Barack Obama used this presidential power to bar anyone from Iraq from entering the country for six months.

Enter President Trump.

As a candidate, Trump promised that he would secure the nation’s borders from those whom he deems harmful to national security for limited periods of time — at least until he and those under him could determine a more accurate mechanism for separating the true refugees from the ones seeking entry for nefarious purposes. On his eighth day in office, he did just that.

The reaction was swift, loud and seemingly everywhere as foreign-born people, many with green cards and visas, were stopped and detained at the nation’s international airports last Saturday. Over the weekend, federal judges in New York City, Boston, Virginia and Seattle ruled that Trump’s order could not apply to green card holders or those who received valid State Department-issued visas based on the pre-executive order protocol.

To its credit, the government recognized that the language of the executive order needed to be clarified because green card holders, no matter the country of origin, have the same right of exit and entry as citizens. Moreover, the government cannot constitutionally give anyone a benefit — such as a visa — and then nullify the benefit because it changed the issuing standards afterward. So the Trump changes can be prospective only.

Where does this leave us?

Expect numerous challenges in Congress and in the courts to Trump’s order because, the challengers will argue, though its stated purpose was not to bar a religious group, its effect is largely to bar Muslims. For sure, the courts will address this. The purpose/effect distinction — which exists in many areas of the law, such as school desegregation, legislative apportionment and voting rights — has not been accepted by the courts against a president for a temporary immigration ban because the courts have often deferred to presidents on foreign policy.

Is the ban just?

Everyone knows we are a nation of immigrants. Three of my grandparents immigrated here as children. Most people recognize that all people have the natural right to travel, which means they can seek entry here; but the country has accepted the ideas that our borders are not open, that the welfare state here is not without financial limits and that in perilous times such as today, immigration is largely and legally in the hands of the president, whether one has voted for him or not.

Yet like all governmental powers, particularly those that often clash with natural rights when they are exercised, the power to regulate immigration must be exercised narrowly. Many reading this are here because someone left another country for the freedoms that are respected here. Those freedoms are natural to everyone and will always draw people here.

The government can only morally and constitutionally interfere with personal freedom for the most compelling of reasons and utilizing the least restrictive means. Is the government faithful to that well-recognized rule? We shall soon see.

Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Immigration in the West is colonization of white homelands and white-built-nations by non-white hordes. And there is no end in sight because whites built the best societies and everyone around the world who’d messed up his own nation just wants to come and leech off white achievements.

    Sad thing is SO MANY WHITES call for further colonization of white lands by non-whites. They welcome demographic imperialism and displacement.

    Why? Whites in the past didn’t welcome their own demise.

    It’s because their minds are colonized by PC. PC virus works on their minds to make them rabidly hostile against their own kind and blissfully virtuous in lending aid to the enemy.

    When suicidal ‘moral’ narcissism becomes the main identification of a people, they are finished.

    • Replies: @Steel T Post
    Colonized by PC, true. From whence comes PC?

    "The liberal belief in the free and sacred nature of each individual is a direct legacy of the traditional Christian belief in the free and eternal souls. Without recourse to eternal souls and a Creator God, it becomes embarrassingly difficult for liberals to explain what is so special about individual Sapiens. [...] The idea that all humans are equal is a revamped version of the monotheist conviction that all souls are equal before God." (p. 231)

    Yuval Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. (Harper Collins, 2015)
     
    Sunday School, Progressive or Conservative, is the beginning of PC colonization when the teacher has the children sing The Cathedral's propaganda:

    Red and yellow,
    Black and white,
    They are precious,
    In His sight.


    To the point: Who is importing the refugees? Christian charity groups. Because every "soul" is precious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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 once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/the-president-and-immigration/#comment-1750443
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Based on the reasoning contained in this “racial and religious dispossession is a natural right” article, I rather wish Judge Napolitano’s ancestors had stayed put. We are now in an existential fight over who will inhabit North America–the Napolitana solution is basically an advocacy of suicide in the face of invasion.

  3. @Priss Factor
    Immigration in the West is colonization of white homelands and white-built-nations by non-white hordes. And there is no end in sight because whites built the best societies and everyone around the world who'd messed up his own nation just wants to come and leech off white achievements.

    Sad thing is SO MANY WHITES call for further colonization of white lands by non-whites. They welcome demographic imperialism and displacement.

    Why? Whites in the past didn't welcome their own demise.

    It's because their minds are colonized by PC. PC virus works on their minds to make them rabidly hostile against their own kind and blissfully virtuous in lending aid to the enemy.

    When suicidal 'moral' narcissism becomes the main identification of a people, they are finished.

    Colonized by PC, true. From whence comes PC?

    “The liberal belief in the free and sacred nature of each individual is a direct legacy of the traditional Christian belief in the free and eternal souls. Without recourse to eternal souls and a Creator God, it becomes embarrassingly difficult for liberals to explain what is so special about individual Sapiens. [...] The idea that all humans are equal is a revamped version of the monotheist conviction that all souls are equal before God.” (p. 231)

    Yuval Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. (Harper Collins, 2015)

    Sunday School, Progressive or Conservative, is the beginning of PC colonization when the teacher has the children sing The Cathedral’s propaganda:

    Red and yellow,
    Black and white,
    They are precious,
    In His sight.

    To the point: Who is importing the refugees? Christian charity groups. Because every “soul” is precious.

  4. Sad thing is SO MANY WHITES call for further colonization of white lands by non-whites. They welcome demographic imperialism and displacement.

    This was not the “white land.” This land originally belonged to non-whites, i.e. the American Indians. They should have had a better immigration policy to limit the white invasion.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    They should have had a better immigration policy to limit the white invasion.
     
    So true.

    Today's "We Are The World" echo of togetherness (exhibited by open-borders fanaticism) is a great example of how people learn.

    1. Some can learn by thinking through the logical consequences of a current action.
    2. Some can look to others' experience (e.g., your observation about Native American immigration policy) to understand.

    3. But some morons just have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
  5. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    If it weren’t for their trivial numbers we’d be fully justified in rounding up libertarians and placing them in concentration camps.

    They are a threat to the very existence of this country.

  6. Article 1, Section 9, clause 1 gives congress the right to restrict immigration – via a $10/person head tax before January 1, 1808, and unlimited power to restrict immigration thereafter.

    Congress used this power to restrict the immigration of slaves long before 1882.

    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    Furthermore, Article 5 guarantees that no amendment can take away from congress the right to restrict immigration.

    If amendments can't take this right away from congress, then neither can court rulings.
  7. @John Gruskos
    Article 1, Section 9, clause 1 gives congress the right to restrict immigration - via a $10/person head tax before January 1, 1808, and unlimited power to restrict immigration thereafter.

    Congress used this power to restrict the immigration of slaves long before 1882.

    Furthermore, Article 5 guarantees that no amendment can take away from congress the right to restrict immigration.

    If amendments can’t take this right away from congress, then neither can court rulings.

  8. We are not a nation of immigrants. My great-grandfather may have been one but I am not.

    • Replies: @Ttjy
    Correct. I am so sick of this "nation of immigrants" nonsense.

    It's almost like we have to bow down to these immigrants at this point.

    Nobody has a right to move here.
  9. I don’t recall any nuanced legal arguments from the judge as to why immigration inflows at 85% non-white is not discriminatory towards the founding white racial stock and recent refugee arrivals at approximately 99% Muslim is not discriminatory towards Christian victims of religious persecution. Yet now he intimates that Trump is treading on Constitutional and legal thin ice in trying to serve the American people and bring sanity to our suicidal refugee policy. Or that if Trump’s actions are within the bounds of legality that it’s morally questionable.

    It’s clear whose side he’s on.

    Many reading this are here because someone left another country for the freedoms that are respected here. Those freedoms are natural to everyone and will always draw people here.

    I just vomited. The majority of third world immigrants don’t come here because they are attracted to the freedoms and ideals in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    The reality is that most come here to exploit the system and for the social safety net. Immigrants simply can’t fail today whereas prior to 1924 around a 1/3 of European immigrants returned home for economic or other reasons since they couldn’t go on welfare or parlay dubious claims of racism and discrimination into special rights and privileged status.

    If the judge thinks the entirety of mankind essentially shares the same core values and worldview he belongs in a straight jacket. If they admired our ideals they can simply work to reform their own nations along the lines of the U.S. Constitution. Most importantly, if that belief were true then the third world would have already created nations similar to America and they wouldn’t need to come here.

  10. From 1776 to 1882, Congress recognized this distinction by staying largely silent on immigration, and thus, anyone could come here from anywhere, with the only real regulation being for public health.

    More accurately, immigration was administered by the individual States. Immigration is, everywhere and always, a local phenomenon, but we insist on administering it nationally. If you really believe in democracy, people should get to vote on who their neighbors are.

    Also, I am getting sick of this “right to travel” framing of the debate. There is no a priori right to travel; all travel off your own property requires the permission of adjacent property owners.

    • Agree: jtgw
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    Also, I am getting sick of this “right to travel” framing of the debate. There is no a priori right to travel; all travel off your own property requires the permission of adjacent property owners.
     
    Silly person. We're now told that the Refugee Resettlement Organizations can take their 30 pieces of silver and drop an unlimited number of culturally alien people, most of whom are incapable of so much as holding down a job as a custodian or burger-flipper, into your back yard.

    Your property, income and sales taxes will pay for them in perpetuity.

    Don't make the mistake of complaining, though. It's blasphemy under our current Theocratic Regime, and you can lose your job and face economic ruin (BTW, YOU won't be eligible for all the welfare benefits showered on Somali, Syrian or other "refugees") if they assign you the Scarlet Letter R(acist), I(slamophobe) or any of the other humiliations favored by the Leftist Cult.

    /sarc off. And people wonder why ammunition sales continue a years long trend of being through the roof, even without a leftist freak in the White House.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Are you f@#$ing retarded?

    If we make immigration a "local phenomenon", regulated by the states, then if one state chooses to admit immigrants those immigrants will be allowed to migrate to other states. "Blue" states could then destroy the entire country within a decade.

    Or we'd need border controls (and maybe walls) between states.

    Your language suggests you are a libertarian, which makes you a threat to America's national security.
  11. @MEexpert

    Sad thing is SO MANY WHITES call for further colonization of white lands by non-whites. They welcome demographic imperialism and displacement.
     
    This was not the "white land." This land originally belonged to non-whites, i.e. the American Indians. They should have had a better immigration policy to limit the white invasion.

    They should have had a better immigration policy to limit the white invasion.

    So true.

    Today’s “We Are The World” echo of togetherness (exhibited by open-borders fanaticism) is a great example of how people learn.

    1. Some can learn by thinking through the logical consequences of a current action.
    2. Some can look to others’ experience (e.g., your observation about Native American immigration policy) to understand.

    3. But some morons just have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

  12. All of this is HILARIOUS.

    We see the Good Judge (popular among libertarians, of course) politely discuss legal precedent and constitutional niceties in an environment pervaded by a maniacally high social mood (as evidenced by the lingering Extraordinary Popular Delusions of our age, like debt=wealth and Blank Slate ascientific claptrap.)

    Trees don’t grow to the sky. Had the markets (and the social mood they reflect) rolled over 20 years ago, this immivasion would have been stuffed out then. Instead, as the mania extended and extended, we watched de facto Political Patronage Workers import millions of people from places where assimilation to US culture is quite literally impossible.

    Just as the final high in the stock market doesn’t matter, because the ultimate denouement of the bear market certain to follow is basically the same, the number of truly ALIEN peoples who flood into the USA is unlikely to radically change the ultimate denouement of the coming waves of xenophobic pogroms all but certain to follow.

    Unless a whites-only disease depopulates North America of persons of mostly European/English ancestry, it is inevitable that the welfare state and openness will turn malevolent when this vast Ponzi scheme finally and inevitably collapses.

    Wait, just WAIT until people whose homeland is HERE (the USA) are worried about keeping warm in winter and their kids fed in coming weeks. Tolerance for visibly alien people will evaporate, and anyone who has a homeland NOT HERE will be driven home or planted in a garden somewhere. Right now a large number of recent “immigrants” are soaking up welfare benefits in terms of free housing, free medical care, free food and such.

    When resource restriction arrives, the call will be “Americans ONLY” for the rapidly dwindling handouts. It will be difficult enough to subsidize the dole even for “heritage” Americans.

  13. @The Anti-Gnostic

    From 1776 to 1882, Congress recognized this distinction by staying largely silent on immigration, and thus, anyone could come here from anywhere, with the only real regulation being for public health.
     
    More accurately, immigration was administered by the individual States. Immigration is, everywhere and always, a local phenomenon, but we insist on administering it nationally. If you really believe in democracy, people should get to vote on who their neighbors are.

    Also, I am getting sick of this "right to travel" framing of the debate. There is no a priori right to travel; all travel off your own property requires the permission of adjacent property owners.

    Also, I am getting sick of this “right to travel” framing of the debate. There is no a priori right to travel; all travel off your own property requires the permission of adjacent property owners.

    Silly person. We’re now told that the Refugee Resettlement Organizations can take their 30 pieces of silver and drop an unlimited number of culturally alien people, most of whom are incapable of so much as holding down a job as a custodian or burger-flipper, into your back yard.

    Your property, income and sales taxes will pay for them in perpetuity.

    Don’t make the mistake of complaining, though. It’s blasphemy under our current Theocratic Regime, and you can lose your job and face economic ruin (BTW, YOU won’t be eligible for all the welfare benefits showered on Somali, Syrian or other “refugees”) if they assign you the Scarlet Letter R(acist), I(slamophobe) or any of the other humiliations favored by the Leftist Cult.

    /sarc off. And people wonder why ammunition sales continue a years long trend of being through the roof, even without a leftist freak in the White House.

  14. The real threat to the west are not the Muslims or the third world immigrants, it’s their elites. They are the ones that come up with moronic ideas such as brining millions of individuals of alien culture and religion and expecting a miraculous society full of virtues to emerge out of that chaos. Well, my guess is that it won’t. .

    The morons who came up with the idea thought that when they import millions of hijab wearing babushkas – as soon as they see the wonderful freedoms in the west, they’ll ditch the hijabs, maybe don miniskirts and finally enjoy a life free of “oppressions”. It’s probably coming as a shock to the morons that this is not happening. If anybody should have known better it’s elites in the west, after all they have prior experience with another ethnic group from the middle east who has lived in the west for 2000 years and they never integrated to the point of melting and adopting the hosts nations culture and religion.

    That, by the way has been the biggest reason for centuries of prosecution of that middle eastern ethnic group – the Jews. For 2 thousand years they have endured endless hardships and persecution because of their refusal to integrate.

    And now the morons represented by elites in the west think that the Muslims will be different. The problem that they represent will be of much greater scale –because of their numbers and because of their intentions. They are not coming to the west to submissively adopt a new culture and thus admit their cultural inferiority. They are coming to the west tumbling their noses at those expectations declaring that their culture, religion and customs are superior and that they should prevail in a cultural war where “diversity is our strength” – is a perfect motto under which to preserve their culture until they build sufficient numbers for the final showdown with the degenerate west.

    The west – especially their elites need an urgent demoronization program where they will undergo a treatment to eradicate degenerate ideas threatening the survival of the western culture. You can’t build a monument to the greatness of the west by inviting invading hordes from the third world to marvel at the cultural and economic greatness of the west. The only thing that could happen is that those hordes will tear down the greatness of the west and in the remaining ashes, maybe with pity admire it’s glorious past.

  15. @The Anti-Gnostic

    From 1776 to 1882, Congress recognized this distinction by staying largely silent on immigration, and thus, anyone could come here from anywhere, with the only real regulation being for public health.
     
    More accurately, immigration was administered by the individual States. Immigration is, everywhere and always, a local phenomenon, but we insist on administering it nationally. If you really believe in democracy, people should get to vote on who their neighbors are.

    Also, I am getting sick of this "right to travel" framing of the debate. There is no a priori right to travel; all travel off your own property requires the permission of adjacent property owners.

    Are you f@#$ing retarded?

    If we make immigration a “local phenomenon”, regulated by the states, then if one state chooses to admit immigrants those immigrants will be allowed to migrate to other states. “Blue” states could then destroy the entire country within a decade.

    Or we’d need border controls (and maybe walls) between states.

    Your language suggests you are a libertarian, which makes you a threat to America’s national security.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Or we’d need border controls (and maybe walls) between states.
     
    Actually, we do. In Atlanta, for example, after Hurricane Katrina there was a large spike in homicides as gangs from New Orleans set up shop.

    This was always a fundamental flaw in the American scheme, and the last time Americans divided over deeply existential issues it took 620,000 deaths to sort it out.
  16. @MarkinLA
    We are not a nation of immigrants. My great-grandfather may have been one but I am not.

    Correct. I am so sick of this “nation of immigrants” nonsense.

    It’s almost like we have to bow down to these immigrants at this point.

    Nobody has a right to move here.

    • Replies: @MEexpert

    Nobody has a right to move here.
     
    Normally, I would agree with you but not in this case. These people were happy in their homes until George Bush, Obama, and Hillary Clinton decided to invade their country and bombed the heck out of them. This led to the rise of first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Between these three, i.e. the US and its allies, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, they played havoc with these peoples' lives and their homeland was left in shambles. In other words, they became the refugees.

    It is the moral duty of the US and its allies to make home for these people. In other words, these refugees have earned the right to move here.
  17. @Ttjy
    Correct. I am so sick of this "nation of immigrants" nonsense.

    It's almost like we have to bow down to these immigrants at this point.

    Nobody has a right to move here.

    Nobody has a right to move here.

    Normally, I would agree with you but not in this case. These people were happy in their homes until George Bush, Obama, and Hillary Clinton decided to invade their country and bombed the heck out of them. This led to the rise of first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Between these three, i.e. the US and its allies, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, they played havoc with these peoples’ lives and their homeland was left in shambles. In other words, they became the refugees.

    It is the moral duty of the US and its allies to make home for these people. In other words, these refugees have earned the right to move here.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    "The US and its allies" is an abstraction. Many of us did not agree to blow up the Middle East. If there's any moral duty, it's to join Russia and Iran in eradicating Wahabbism so these people can live in peace and relative prosperity in their homelands. By the way, most of these "refugees" are surplus men from northern and central Africa.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    We've made them miserable over there, so let's settle them over here, where they'll hate us for what we did over there. What could possibly go wrong?

    Oh, yes, I forgot: Magic Dirt.

    My reaction to the ongoing fighting in the Middle East is to hope that all the sides are lavishly furnished with ammunition.

  18. “particularly those that often clash with natural rights”: there are no natural rights. Man is a social animal; all his rights stem from the society of which he is part. The old term “civil rights” is suitable for such rights.

  19. @Thorfinnsson
    Are you f@#$ing retarded?

    If we make immigration a "local phenomenon", regulated by the states, then if one state chooses to admit immigrants those immigrants will be allowed to migrate to other states. "Blue" states could then destroy the entire country within a decade.

    Or we'd need border controls (and maybe walls) between states.

    Your language suggests you are a libertarian, which makes you a threat to America's national security.

    Or we’d need border controls (and maybe walls) between states.

    Actually, we do. In Atlanta, for example, after Hurricane Katrina there was a large spike in homicides as gangs from New Orleans set up shop.

    This was always a fundamental flaw in the American scheme, and the last time Americans divided over deeply existential issues it took 620,000 deaths to sort it out.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    If states have the power to regulate immigration, there is no reason why they have to admit non-citizens traveling from other states. The idea that states have to have completely open borders with each other is another newfangled theory, along with the idea that only the federal government can regulate immigration from outside the US. The only power the states do not have is to bar entry to US citizens; if you're not a US citizen, there is constitutionally speaking no reason any state has to admit you.

    Some might argue that, if the Congress has the power to regulate naturalization, then it has the power to grant quasi-citizenship rights of residence to certain aliens. I don't buy that argument since "naturalization" clearly meant granting US citizenship. You're either a citizen or an alien.
  20. @MEexpert

    Nobody has a right to move here.
     
    Normally, I would agree with you but not in this case. These people were happy in their homes until George Bush, Obama, and Hillary Clinton decided to invade their country and bombed the heck out of them. This led to the rise of first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Between these three, i.e. the US and its allies, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, they played havoc with these peoples' lives and their homeland was left in shambles. In other words, they became the refugees.

    It is the moral duty of the US and its allies to make home for these people. In other words, these refugees have earned the right to move here.

    “The US and its allies” is an abstraction. Many of us did not agree to blow up the Middle East. If there’s any moral duty, it’s to join Russia and Iran in eradicating Wahabbism so these people can live in peace and relative prosperity in their homelands. By the way, most of these “refugees” are surplus men from northern and central Africa.

  21. @MEexpert

    Nobody has a right to move here.
     
    Normally, I would agree with you but not in this case. These people were happy in their homes until George Bush, Obama, and Hillary Clinton decided to invade their country and bombed the heck out of them. This led to the rise of first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Between these three, i.e. the US and its allies, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, they played havoc with these peoples' lives and their homeland was left in shambles. In other words, they became the refugees.

    It is the moral duty of the US and its allies to make home for these people. In other words, these refugees have earned the right to move here.

    We’ve made them miserable over there, so let’s settle them over here, where they’ll hate us for what we did over there. What could possibly go wrong?

    Oh, yes, I forgot: Magic Dirt.

    My reaction to the ongoing fighting in the Middle East is to hope that all the sides are lavishly furnished with ammunition.

  22. Expect numerous challenges in Congress and in the courts to Trump’s order because, the challengers will argue, though its stated purpose was not to bar a religious group, its effect is largely to bar Muslims. For sure, the courts will address this. The purpose/effect distinction — which exists in many areas of the law, such as school desegregation, legislative apportionment and voting rights — has not been accepted by the courts against a president for a temporary immigration ban because the courts have often deferred to presidents on foreign policy.

    So, it was fine to bar Iranian immigrants when the effect was largely to bar Muslims, and it was fine to bar Iraqi immigrants when the effect was largely to bar Muslims, but now it’s not fine to bar immigrants from several countries, when the effect is largely to bar Muslims.

    Makes no sense. Smells like BS.

    This whole thing just shows how bankrupt the idea of “disparate impact” is. It’s effectively being used to argue that the US must have open borders, because everybody from anywhere is something (Muslim, Christian, whatever).

    Everyone knows we are a nation of immigrants.

    This is somewhere between a lie, and a meaningless statement. Several of my ancestors came to this continent BEFORE THERE WAS A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    They were not “immigrants.” They were settlers, colonists, pioneers, but not immigrants.

  23. Steel T Post
    says:

    February 2, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words

    One could call the mentality that is being subverted toward hostile ends “post-Christian,” but a Hell of the lot of the people doing the subverting are Jewish.

    This was not the “white land.” This land originally belonged to non-whites, i.e. the American Indians. They should have had a better immigration policy to limit the white invasion.

    It was the Whites’ land, according to the Reds, as soon as the Whites conquered it. The Reds lived by the law of the right of conquest; if you take it, it’s yours. Then Whites came along, and played the conquest game much better than the Reds did. So, the land became theirs.

    Well, that describes some of the land acquisition, anyway. Whites also acquired gobsmacking amounts of land from the Reds the newfangled way, by buying it outright.

    Article 1, Section 9, clause 1 gives congress the right to restrict immigration – via a $10/person head tax before January 1, 1808, and unlimited power to restrict immigration thereafter.

    $10 in 1808 is $182, adjusted for inflation. Peanuts, but better than nothing.

    We are not a nation of immigrants. My great-grandfather may have been one but I am not.

    Thank you. That’s the flip side of the argument I made above.

    I don’t recall any nuanced legal arguments from the judge as to why immigration inflows at 85% non-white is not discriminatory towards the founding white racial stock and recent refugee arrivals at approximately 99% Muslim is not discriminatory towards Christian victims of religious persecution.

    Hear, hear!

    Libertarians are a plague.

    If the judge thinks the entirety of mankind essentially shares the same core values and worldview he belongs in a straight jacket. If they admired our ideals they can simply work to reform their own nations along the lines of the U.S. Constitution. Most importantly, if that belief were true then the third world would have already created nations similar to America and they wouldn’t need to come here.

    Even if true, it means that the US is robbing the source countries of any chance for American-style liberty, by draining those countries of the people so inclined.

    Normally, I would agree with you but not in this case. These people were happy in their homes until George Bush, Obama, and Hillary Clinton decided to invade their country and bombed the heck out of them. This led to the rise of first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Between these three, i.e. the US and its allies, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, they played havoc with these peoples’ lives and their homeland was left in shambles. In other words, they became the refugees.

    It is the moral duty of the US and its allies to make home for these people. In other words, these refugees have earned the right to move here.

    No, sorry, there’s no trump card against reciprocity. They keep their countries closed, we have no motivation not to reciprocate. If they want reciprocity, they can bomb us back, like on 9/11, sue us for damages, etc. They don’t get to move here. Plus, granting people asylum because they hate you because you bombed them, it’s just nuts.

    Muslims would never allow demographic invasion without fighting back.

    “We have always been a nation of immigrants” makes as much sense as, “we have always had lots of extra space,” or, “I have always had a fat bank account.”

    Things change, duh.

  24. @The Anti-Gnostic

    Or we’d need border controls (and maybe walls) between states.
     
    Actually, we do. In Atlanta, for example, after Hurricane Katrina there was a large spike in homicides as gangs from New Orleans set up shop.

    This was always a fundamental flaw in the American scheme, and the last time Americans divided over deeply existential issues it took 620,000 deaths to sort it out.

    If states have the power to regulate immigration, there is no reason why they have to admit non-citizens traveling from other states. The idea that states have to have completely open borders with each other is another newfangled theory, along with the idea that only the federal government can regulate immigration from outside the US. The only power the states do not have is to bar entry to US citizens; if you’re not a US citizen, there is constitutionally speaking no reason any state has to admit you.

    Some might argue that, if the Congress has the power to regulate naturalization, then it has the power to grant quasi-citizenship rights of residence to certain aliens. I don’t buy that argument since “naturalization” clearly meant granting US citizenship. You’re either a citizen or an alien.

  25. “The government can only morally and constitutionally interfere with personal freedom for the most compelling of reasons and utilizing the least restrictive means. Is the government faithful to that well-recognized rule? We shall soon see.”

    Why the wait? I don’t concede that our corrupt and politicized judiciary has a monopoly on deciding this issue.

    “…under our system, immigration materially affects the nation’s foreign policy and foreign policy is constitutionally the domain of the president… Yet the courts have limited the president’s exercise of this power so that he cannot base it on First Amendment-protected liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, religion and association. So he cannot bar an immigrant because of the immigrant’s political views, religion or colleagues.”

    And now the panel of the 9th Circuit purports that it can detect motivation in Trump’s campaign speeches, such that Trump cannot fully perform his duties, under the Constitution and per statutorily granted discretion, because the courts think his perfectly sensible conclusions about the Muslim religion are prohibited? If, say, the religion were that of the Assassins (Nizari Ismailis) would that apply as well? Is the Constitution a suicide pact? Is the prohibition on a Federal Establishment of Religion, a relgious test for office, or the free exercise of religion HERE IN THE US really a prohibition on making distinctions between aliens who have never been here?

    “…the government cannot constitutionally give anyone a benefit — such as a visa — and then nullify the benefit because it changed the issuing standards afterward.”

    I’ll pass over the fact that issuance of a visa merely gives the holder the right to travel to a port of entry, with no guarantee of admission, and concentrate on the idiocy of the basic claim that the government can’t cancel visas. This isn’t criminalizing anything ex post facto. There’s no property right in a visa — you can’t sell it. Would a Japanese or German be afterwards able to use a visa obtained before Pearl Harbor? What are you smoking?

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
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.