The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Napolitano ArchiveBlogview
Trump, Immigration and the Supreme Court
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Earlier this week, after nearly uniform rejections by judges all across the country, President Donald Trump achieved a court victory in the persistent challenges to his most recent executive order restricting the immigration of people into the United States from six predominately Muslim countries. Lower federal courts had consistently ruled that the president’s behavior was animated by an anti-Muslim bias — a bias he forcefully articulated during the presidential election campaign — concluding that what appeared to be, on its face, a travel ban based rationally on national security needs was in reality a “Muslim ban” based on religious fear, prejudice or hatred.

The Supreme Court unanimously saw it differently. Here is the back story.

I have argued for months that both the first travel ban executive order, signed Jan. 27, and the second one, signed March 6, were lawful and constitutional because the courts have ruled that the Constitution gives the president exclusively the final say on foreign policy and because they have ruled that immigration is one of the tools he can use to effectuate that policy. Moreover, Congress has expressly authorized the president to suspend immigration from stated countries for finite periods of time to enhance national security.

In order to do this and pass judicial muster, the president’s lawyers in the Department of Justice need only show that the president has a rational basis for his order. Trump argued that his rational basis was a determination by the State Department under former President Barack Obama, reinforced by his own State Department, that immigrants who would cause harm once here in the U.S. are more likely than not to come from the six designated countries in the second order — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The traditional Judeo-Christian view of governmental decisions that limit the liberties or opportunities of many because of the anticipated behavior of a few is that those decisions are unjust and need not be obeyed. Indeed, in America — in our post-Civil War and post-civil rights eras — we have come to the political and legal consensus that individual worthiness is personal and is not a characteristic of a group, and we have condemned other countries’ governments for punishing the many because of the fear or behavior of a few. Yet the issue before the high court regarding the president’s executive order is not its wisdom or morality or justness. The issue is its lawfulness and its constitutionality.

If an executive order is based on a denial of a fundamental liberty (other than travel) — speech or religion, for example — then the DOJ has a much higher bar to meet, called strict scrutiny. Those of us who monitor these things have fairly well concluded that it cannot meet that high bar. Stated differently, if the high court concludes that the travel ban is really a Muslim ban, the court will invalidate the ban — which every court to review it before the Supreme Court did.

ORDER IT NOW

In the first challenge to the president’s first order, a federal district court in Seattle ruled that it was based on religion, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. Rather than appeal that to the Supreme Court, the president signed the second executive order — which imposed the same restrictions as the first, but in more thoughtful, cautious and lawyerlike language.

The second executive order was challenged in federal district courts in Honolulu and Annapolis, both of which ruled that it, too, was based on religion, and therefore they invalidated it. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond upheld the Annapolis decision, and the 9th Circuit in San Francisco upheld the Honolulu decision. The DOJ appealed both circuit court rulings to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court intervened.

Bear in mind that there has been no trial in any of these cases. The rulings appealed from were all preliminary in nature, based not on cross-examined evidence but on the judges’ feel for the cases and their understanding of the law. The same is the case with the Supreme Court ruling. It did not say what the law is and what burdens the government must meet for the court to uphold the second executive order. But it did invalidate all injunctions imposed by the lower courts against the enforcement of the second order.

In so doing, it carved out exceptions to the executive order. These judicially created exceptions provide that immigrants from the six countries are exempt from the travel ban if they can show that they have a “relationship” with a person or entity in the U.S. Though the word “relationship” is ambiguous, it can range from a job offer to a university admissions offer to a business opportunity to an anxious family member awaiting the immigrant in the United States.

This judge-made exception to the president’s foreign policy was probably a compromise crafted by Chief Justice John Roberts intended to bring the liberal and conservative wings of the court to agreement on the limited issue of whether the second executive order can be in place and enforced by the government during the time that the court needs to examine it.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented on the exemptions. They argued that the court has no business or right interfering with the president’s foreign policy and that the “relationship” standard is so vague that it will spawn thousands of litigations. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the power of the president to use immigration travel bans as an instrument of foreign policy in October and will probably rule before Christmas.

And then those who want to challenge the president in court will be able to contest the law as the Supreme Court will articulate it. And this troublesome business of banning people from coming here because of their place of origin will be with us for a long time.

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, Judicial System 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Law or no law, US is too big, too many arrive, too many stay. And the border between US and Mexico is wide.

    And cities can cook up illegal stuff like ‘sanctuary cities’ or Sneak-Easys.

    How can US claim to have Rule of Law when cities can willfully ignore federal laws and make up their own rules and welcome those who have broke laws? No nation that claims rule of law can allow all these invacities.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
    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
    /anapolitano/trump-immigration-and-the-supreme-court/#comment-1918882
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. The judges usurping U.S. immigration policy are political snow flakes. They care not about the law. They rule according to their feewings. Donald Trump is not their president.

    Read More
  3. I disrespectfully disagree. Judges have no business making foreign policy. Foreigners have no right to come here. Trump erred in letting the DOJ respond to the lawsuits. Trump should have gone “full Jackson” and ignored the rulings. He should have said the travel ban was explicitly anti-Moslem and within the sole province of the executive branch.
    Further that if any one will be frightened by the prospect of more Islamic immigration, he should have standing to sue to prevent Islamic immigration. Preposterous you say. Agreed. So are the lawsuits.
    Should an Orthodox Jew have standing to sue to prevent Islamic immigration based on the theory that the more Moslems who live in the US, the more likely he is to get assaulted or killed?
    I go further than the Supreme Court dissenters. The DOJ should have convened a grand jury and indicted the judges who ruled on this travel ban for obstructing the operations of a federal agency, i.e., the State Department. These judges should be in custody or out on bail.

    Read More
    • Agree: peterike
    • Replies: @KenH
    The hyper partisan lefty judges of the lower courts provided injunctive relief based on Trump's campaign statements about Muslims instead of the stated intent of the EO. There's no legal principle that allows judges to arbitrarily attribute mens rea to the EO's framer(s) just because it violates leftist orthodoxy on race and immigration and yet the district court judges did just that. So I agree with you that Trump should simply have flipped the federal judiciary the bird and kept on trucking.
    , @Avery
    {The DOJ should have convened a grand jury and indicted the judges who ruled on this travel ban for obstructing the operations of a federal agency, i.e., the State Department. These judges should be in custody or out on bail.}

    Agree.

    Also, Congress must break up the loonie 9th circuit court.
    Enough.
    But the spineless Republicans held some hearings, took more BS from 9th circuit judges, and then foggetaboutit.

    Trump was right: how is it that a lone judge from Hawaii can possibly endanger the lives of 320 million Americans?
    No offense to Hawaii, but how many Muslim immigrants does the judge from Hawaii have living in his neighborhood?
    Any mosques down the street from his residence?
    Does the judge leave his front door open, so anybody can walk in and take residence?
    Give me a break.

    I am an immigrant myself.
    I am very glad my family was _allowed_ to immigrate to US.
    But nobody has a _right_ to immigrate to US: Nobody*.

    And yeah, notwithstanding the fact that most Muslim immigrants are not troublemakers, enough are to give ample justification to ban whomever.
    Several examples from Europe and US** leave no doubt.
    If you are in US legally - naturalized citizen, Green Card, etc - you have all sorts of rights, by Constitution, by law.
    If you are not, you have none.



    ______
    *
    Save someone outside of US who can trace ancestry to one of the Native American nations, imho. As improbable as that may be.

    **
    Islamist Nidal Malik Hasan murdering his fellow Americans; mass murder by Islamists in San Bernardino; mass murder by Islamist Omar Mateen in Florida........
  4. I listened to a Brit law professor blather on about Trump’s EO being an assault on the rule of law: He was perturbed when I took the counterpoint to assert that the judiciary legislating from the bench rather than actually interpreting the law (even in the fullest sense, the judges in this case breathed life into a whole new doctrine that is not even tangential to interpreting or tempering the original intent or plain meaning of the words of the relevant statutes) in order to rule against the EOs.

    Like it or not, this “compromise” is now enshrined in our law and will be yet another wedge by which the rest of the world will find its way to being entitled to self-select for admittance to the US.

    Read More
  5. KenH says:
    @George Weinbaum
    I disrespectfully disagree. Judges have no business making foreign policy. Foreigners have no right to come here. Trump erred in letting the DOJ respond to the lawsuits. Trump should have gone "full Jackson" and ignored the rulings. He should have said the travel ban was explicitly anti-Moslem and within the sole province of the executive branch.
    Further that if any one will be frightened by the prospect of more Islamic immigration, he should have standing to sue to prevent Islamic immigration. Preposterous you say. Agreed. So are the lawsuits.
    Should an Orthodox Jew have standing to sue to prevent Islamic immigration based on the theory that the more Moslems who live in the US, the more likely he is to get assaulted or killed?
    I go further than the Supreme Court dissenters. The DOJ should have convened a grand jury and indicted the judges who ruled on this travel ban for obstructing the operations of a federal agency, i.e., the State Department. These judges should be in custody or out on bail.

    The hyper partisan lefty judges of the lower courts provided injunctive relief based on Trump’s campaign statements about Muslims instead of the stated intent of the EO. There’s no legal principle that allows judges to arbitrarily attribute mens rea to the EO’s framer(s) just because it violates leftist orthodoxy on race and immigration and yet the district court judges did just that. So I agree with you that Trump should simply have flipped the federal judiciary the bird and kept on trucking.

    Read More
  6. MarkinLA says:

    Stated differently, if the high court concludes that the travel ban is really a Muslim ban, the court will invalidate the ban — which every court to review it before the Supreme Court did.

    BS. These people do not have Constitutional rights as they are not US citizens. The court should not be arguing things about foreigners who are outside of the US.

    Read More
  7. mukat says:

    Napolitano obscures his support for leftist permanent revolution through racial communism – using lawyerly language.

    Underneath the calm surface, the Judge is saying (rapturously): “Every individual is American and everything is potentially American. America is the alpha and omega.”

    Forget the Dreamers. Libertarians and other extreme leftists support the Gleamers: Any entity of genus homo existing in the universe, that gets a gleam in its eye to immigrate to America, must be considered a beloved fellow American from that instant onwards.

    Read More
  8. KenH says:

    In so doing, it carved out exceptions to the executive order. These judicially created exceptions provide that immigrants from the six countries are exempt from the travel ban if they can show that they have a “relationship” with a person or entity in the U.S.

    And we’re supposed to consider this a victory? It’s a hollow one at best. My guess is that the bar for this relationship standard introduced by SCOTUS will be so low as to render the travel ban virtually toothless.

    And this troublesome business of banning people from coming here because of their place of origin will be with us for a long time.

    As they say, no sh*t Sherlock. A mindset has taken hold of most elites and about 40% of the population that nobody can be prevented from entering if they wish to come and that a moratorium on immigration followed by restricting legal immigration to those of European racial stock is “un-American” even though that was our policy up until Marxist racial revolution 1965 which is still ongoing today.

    Read More
  9. What we should really be concerned about is whether the travel ban in its original or modified version will do anything to protect the residents of the ‘homeland’ from terrorist attacks. The evidence for this seems pretty thin.

    Perhaps an interstate travel ban would stop nutcases from going to Washington to shoot people. It might have stopped Timothy McVeigh too, but would we really want it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue

    "What we should really be concerned about is whether the travel ban in its original or modified version will do anything to protect the residents of the ‘homeland’ from terrorist attacks....Perhaps an interstate travel ban would stop nutcases from going to Washington to shoot people."
     
    My dear Jonathan Mason, how sly of you to conflate an external, needlessly and avoidably imported foreign mass-ideological menace that has a 1400-year record of migratory and military conquest with our own minor, ideologically fragmented - kaleidoscopic! - domestic nuisances. Did you expect no one here to see through your attempt at moral equivalence. Let me suggest you listen to the 24 June edition of Radio Derb.
    , @MarkinLA
    No what we really should be concerned about is how can we get the ball rolling for some kind of immigration restriction that as we as a country have a right to do. I don't want to stop at just these 6 countries. How can we expand the list if we continue to make up excuses for these 6?
  10. @Jonathan Mason
    What we should really be concerned about is whether the travel ban in its original or modified version will do anything to protect the residents of the 'homeland' from terrorist attacks. The evidence for this seems pretty thin.

    Perhaps an interstate travel ban would stop nutcases from going to Washington to shoot people. It might have stopped Timothy McVeigh too, but would we really want it?

    “What we should really be concerned about is whether the travel ban in its original or modified version will do anything to protect the residents of the ‘homeland’ from terrorist attacks….Perhaps an interstate travel ban would stop nutcases from going to Washington to shoot people.”

    My dear Jonathan Mason, how sly of you to conflate an external, needlessly and avoidably imported foreign mass-ideological menace that has a 1400-year record of migratory and military conquest with our own minor, ideologically fragmented – kaleidoscopic! – domestic nuisances. Did you expect no one here to see through your attempt at moral equivalence. Let me suggest you listen to the 24 June edition of Radio Derb.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Schopenhauer wrote, "It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it." Remain vigilant, Auntie.
  11. Avery says:

    {…policy was probably a compromise crafted by Chief Justice John Roberts intended to bring the liberal and conservative wings…}

    Hopefully one or more so-called ‘liberal’* justices will leave the bench, so Trump can get one or more Gorsuches – sane Constitutionalists – in there.

    _______

    *
    e.g. nutcase Ginsburg is a bigoted anti-Christian, anti-male, anti-American ideologue. She getting involved in politics and publicly criticizing a POTUS nominee, calling him names,……says that she is a partisan hack and has no business on the SCOTUS.

    Read More
  12. Avery says:
    @George Weinbaum
    I disrespectfully disagree. Judges have no business making foreign policy. Foreigners have no right to come here. Trump erred in letting the DOJ respond to the lawsuits. Trump should have gone "full Jackson" and ignored the rulings. He should have said the travel ban was explicitly anti-Moslem and within the sole province of the executive branch.
    Further that if any one will be frightened by the prospect of more Islamic immigration, he should have standing to sue to prevent Islamic immigration. Preposterous you say. Agreed. So are the lawsuits.
    Should an Orthodox Jew have standing to sue to prevent Islamic immigration based on the theory that the more Moslems who live in the US, the more likely he is to get assaulted or killed?
    I go further than the Supreme Court dissenters. The DOJ should have convened a grand jury and indicted the judges who ruled on this travel ban for obstructing the operations of a federal agency, i.e., the State Department. These judges should be in custody or out on bail.

    {The DOJ should have convened a grand jury and indicted the judges who ruled on this travel ban for obstructing the operations of a federal agency, i.e., the State Department. These judges should be in custody or out on bail.}

    Agree.

    Also, Congress must break up the loonie 9th circuit court.
    Enough.
    But the spineless Republicans held some hearings, took more BS from 9th circuit judges, and then foggetaboutit.

    Trump was right: how is it that a lone judge from Hawaii can possibly endanger the lives of 320 million Americans?
    No offense to Hawaii, but how many Muslim immigrants does the judge from Hawaii have living in his neighborhood?
    Any mosques down the street from his residence?
    Does the judge leave his front door open, so anybody can walk in and take residence?
    Give me a break.

    I am an immigrant myself.
    I am very glad my family was _allowed_ to immigrate to US.
    But nobody has a _right_ to immigrate to US: Nobody*.

    And yeah, notwithstanding the fact that most Muslim immigrants are not troublemakers, enough are to give ample justification to ban whomever.
    Several examples from Europe and US** leave no doubt.
    If you are in US legally – naturalized citizen, Green Card, etc – you have all sorts of rights, by Constitution, by law.
    If you are not, you have none.

    ______
    *
    Save someone outside of US who can trace ancestry to one of the Native American nations, imho. As improbable as that may be.

    **
    Islamist Nidal Malik Hasan murdering his fellow Americans; mass murder by Islamists in San Bernardino; mass murder by Islamist Omar Mateen in Florida……..

    Read More
  13. MarkinLA says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    What we should really be concerned about is whether the travel ban in its original or modified version will do anything to protect the residents of the 'homeland' from terrorist attacks. The evidence for this seems pretty thin.

    Perhaps an interstate travel ban would stop nutcases from going to Washington to shoot people. It might have stopped Timothy McVeigh too, but would we really want it?

    No what we really should be concerned about is how can we get the ball rolling for some kind of immigration restriction that as we as a country have a right to do. I don’t want to stop at just these 6 countries. How can we expand the list if we continue to make up excuses for these 6?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    Well, there are existing processes for changing the balance of how many people each nation gets to send to the US and how many people are accepted overall. Executive orders are not the only mechanism.
  14. @MarkinLA
    No what we really should be concerned about is how can we get the ball rolling for some kind of immigration restriction that as we as a country have a right to do. I don't want to stop at just these 6 countries. How can we expand the list if we continue to make up excuses for these 6?

    Well, there are existing processes for changing the balance of how many people each nation gets to send to the US and how many people are accepted overall. Executive orders are not the only mechanism.

    Read More
  15. TG says:

    I was doing fine but you lost me here: “this troublesome business of banning people from coming here because of their place of origin will be with us for a long time.”

    Ahem? Since when is it a civil right for any foreign national from any country to come here whenever they please? The only people with an unlimited right to enter the United States are surely its citizens (oh OK, and also permanent residents, why not).

    The United States does not need any reason at all to prevent a foreign national from coming here. Indeed, the biggest problem with foreign nationals coming here is not whether or not they are islamic, but simply that they exist. Sinner or saint, genius or dullard, they dilute the stake of ownership of the citizenry, they each a little, but en masse a vast amount, make us more crowded, poorer, less free.

    Tell me, does anyone in the world have the untrammeled right to enter your house? If you tried to prevent a stranger from entering, you would be within your rights. And if 50 random strangers entered and helped themselves to a share of all that you have, would that make you richer? And while you would doubtless be better off if those 50 strangers were Japanese computer programmers than Salvadoran MS13 gang members, you would be better off still if there were NOT 50 random strangers of any kind in your house…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Since when is it a civil right for any foreign national from any country to come here whenever they please?
     
    It is not. People have to apply for and pay for entry visas and residency permits, and even wives or husbands of US citizens may have to wait two years or more before they are allowed to come.

    One might argue that the US is now full, so the doors are closed, however an aging population and the need for constant economic growth make it desirable in the eyes of our rulers to keep on bringing in more people, preferably younger ones who are working, so we can build more homes, print more money, develop more land, sell more furniture, sell more iphones, and provide more jobs.

    There are not enough wealthy foreigners who desire to retire to the US to keep the economy humming, though that might be ideal.
    , @KenH
    You have to understand the libertarian mindset. Most ardently believe in the free flow of goods and people and anything hindering this is "tyranny" or at minimum an abridgment of some mythical natural right for people to live in any nation of their choosing. So if third worlders wish to come here then who the hell are we to say no way, Jose?

    There's a convergence on endless immigration between liberals/leftists, libertarians and cuckservatives albeit for different reasons. The left wants to replace the founding white racial stocks and create a one party tyranny and the cucks mostly want to crash the labor markets and drive down wages for their rich donors like (((Sheldon Adelson))) and the Koch bros among others. And they don't want to be seen as taking the side of white people on this issue since that's racist and white supremacist according to the prevailing narrative.

  16. @TG
    I was doing fine but you lost me here: "this troublesome business of banning people from coming here because of their place of origin will be with us for a long time."

    Ahem? Since when is it a civil right for any foreign national from any country to come here whenever they please? The only people with an unlimited right to enter the United States are surely its citizens (oh OK, and also permanent residents, why not).

    The United States does not need any reason at all to prevent a foreign national from coming here. Indeed, the biggest problem with foreign nationals coming here is not whether or not they are islamic, but simply that they exist. Sinner or saint, genius or dullard, they dilute the stake of ownership of the citizenry, they each a little, but en masse a vast amount, make us more crowded, poorer, less free.

    Tell me, does anyone in the world have the untrammeled right to enter your house? If you tried to prevent a stranger from entering, you would be within your rights. And if 50 random strangers entered and helped themselves to a share of all that you have, would that make you richer? And while you would doubtless be better off if those 50 strangers were Japanese computer programmers than Salvadoran MS13 gang members, you would be better off still if there were NOT 50 random strangers of any kind in your house...

    Since when is it a civil right for any foreign national from any country to come here whenever they please?

    It is not. People have to apply for and pay for entry visas and residency permits, and even wives or husbands of US citizens may have to wait two years or more before they are allowed to come.

    One might argue that the US is now full, so the doors are closed, however an aging population and the need for constant economic growth make it desirable in the eyes of our rulers to keep on bringing in more people, preferably younger ones who are working, so we can build more homes, print more money, develop more land, sell more furniture, sell more iphones, and provide more jobs.

    There are not enough wealthy foreigners who desire to retire to the US to keep the economy humming, though that might be ideal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    an aging population
     
    Did you miss the predictions of 30-70% of jobs lost due to automation in the next 5-10 years?
    , @dc.sunsets
    Try applying your logic to your life. Would you really be upset by there being FEWER people to crowd beaches, parks and all other public commons?

    Do you really desire to be surrounded by those whose culture conflicts with yours? What happens when they obtain the population numbers to use the political system to openly change YOUR land to THEIR land?

    War is coming. Heterogeneous people should not share a geographic polity. High fences make good neighbors. Wide oceans are even better.

    People who think a declining population is "bad" are engaged in globalist sock-puppetry.
  17. KenH says:
    @TG
    I was doing fine but you lost me here: "this troublesome business of banning people from coming here because of their place of origin will be with us for a long time."

    Ahem? Since when is it a civil right for any foreign national from any country to come here whenever they please? The only people with an unlimited right to enter the United States are surely its citizens (oh OK, and also permanent residents, why not).

    The United States does not need any reason at all to prevent a foreign national from coming here. Indeed, the biggest problem with foreign nationals coming here is not whether or not they are islamic, but simply that they exist. Sinner or saint, genius or dullard, they dilute the stake of ownership of the citizenry, they each a little, but en masse a vast amount, make us more crowded, poorer, less free.

    Tell me, does anyone in the world have the untrammeled right to enter your house? If you tried to prevent a stranger from entering, you would be within your rights. And if 50 random strangers entered and helped themselves to a share of all that you have, would that make you richer? And while you would doubtless be better off if those 50 strangers were Japanese computer programmers than Salvadoran MS13 gang members, you would be better off still if there were NOT 50 random strangers of any kind in your house...

    You have to understand the libertarian mindset. Most ardently believe in the free flow of goods and people and anything hindering this is “tyranny” or at minimum an abridgment of some mythical natural right for people to live in any nation of their choosing. So if third worlders wish to come here then who the hell are we to say no way, Jose?

    There’s a convergence on endless immigration between liberals/leftists, libertarians and cuckservatives albeit for different reasons. The left wants to replace the founding white racial stocks and create a one party tyranny and the cucks mostly want to crash the labor markets and drive down wages for their rich donors like (((Sheldon Adelson))) and the Koch bros among others. And they don’t want to be seen as taking the side of white people on this issue since that’s racist and white supremacist according to the prevailing narrative.

    Read More
  18. David says:
    @Auntie Analogue

    "What we should really be concerned about is whether the travel ban in its original or modified version will do anything to protect the residents of the ‘homeland’ from terrorist attacks....Perhaps an interstate travel ban would stop nutcases from going to Washington to shoot people."
     
    My dear Jonathan Mason, how sly of you to conflate an external, needlessly and avoidably imported foreign mass-ideological menace that has a 1400-year record of migratory and military conquest with our own minor, ideologically fragmented - kaleidoscopic! - domestic nuisances. Did you expect no one here to see through your attempt at moral equivalence. Let me suggest you listen to the 24 June edition of Radio Derb.

    Schopenhauer wrote, “It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it.” Remain vigilant, Auntie.

    Read More
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jonathan Mason

    Since when is it a civil right for any foreign national from any country to come here whenever they please?
     
    It is not. People have to apply for and pay for entry visas and residency permits, and even wives or husbands of US citizens may have to wait two years or more before they are allowed to come.

    One might argue that the US is now full, so the doors are closed, however an aging population and the need for constant economic growth make it desirable in the eyes of our rulers to keep on bringing in more people, preferably younger ones who are working, so we can build more homes, print more money, develop more land, sell more furniture, sell more iphones, and provide more jobs.

    There are not enough wealthy foreigners who desire to retire to the US to keep the economy humming, though that might be ideal.

    an aging population

    Did you miss the predictions of 30-70% of jobs lost due to automation in the next 5-10 years?

    Read More
  20. Meh.

    We’re still flying along in this fog of “unlimited resources.”

    Back in the 1970′s there existed widespread fears about overpopulation, landfills filling up, inability of aging sewage systems to handle wastes and industrial pollution poisoning our air, fresh water and oceans.

    Then the open borders Left joined hands with the Chamber of Commerce to flood North America with an additional 100,000,000 newcomers.

    A forecast delayed is not a forecast denied. When this longest-recorded social mood mania finally ends, those newcomers (many “paperwork” citizens) will find their welcome was temporary and they’ll return to their HOMES out of self-preservation.

    Hard times are coming, and those who even resemble a burden will be hated and driven out.

    Read More
  21. @Jonathan Mason

    Since when is it a civil right for any foreign national from any country to come here whenever they please?
     
    It is not. People have to apply for and pay for entry visas and residency permits, and even wives or husbands of US citizens may have to wait two years or more before they are allowed to come.

    One might argue that the US is now full, so the doors are closed, however an aging population and the need for constant economic growth make it desirable in the eyes of our rulers to keep on bringing in more people, preferably younger ones who are working, so we can build more homes, print more money, develop more land, sell more furniture, sell more iphones, and provide more jobs.

    There are not enough wealthy foreigners who desire to retire to the US to keep the economy humming, though that might be ideal.

    Try applying your logic to your life. Would you really be upset by there being FEWER people to crowd beaches, parks and all other public commons?

    Do you really desire to be surrounded by those whose culture conflicts with yours? What happens when they obtain the population numbers to use the political system to openly change YOUR land to THEIR land?

    War is coming. Heterogeneous people should not share a geographic polity. High fences make good neighbors. Wide oceans are even better.

    People who think a declining population is “bad” are engaged in globalist sock-puppetry.

    Read More
  22. Corvinus says:

    “Try applying your logic to your life. Would you really be upset by there being FEWER people to crowd beaches, parks and all other public commons?”

    Depends upon who are the people and what they stand for.

    “Do you really desire to be surrounded by those whose culture conflicts with yours?”

    Assuming that those cultures are in conflict with one another.

    “What happens when they obtain the population numbers to use the political system to openly change YOUR land to THEIR land?”

    The result of human history.

    “War is coming.”

    Maybe.

    “Heterogeneous people should not share a geographic polity. High fences make good neighbors. Wide oceans are even better.”

    All groups of people have come from heterogenous backgrounds. The English, for example. The Celts, the Picts, the Britons, the Romans, the Germanic tribes…Separate groups of people with distinct languages and customs who eventually forged a new nation. Sound familiar?

    Read More
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
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored