Like it or not, President Trump’s immigration ban is perfectly legal and Constitutional. This despite the activist U.S. District Senior Judge James Robart of Seattle’s attempt to legislate from the bench. On Friday Robart issued a nationwide restraining order temporarily blocking the travel ban put in place by President Trump last week. In fact the judge somehow determined that the two state who filed the suit, Washington and Minnesota, would suffer “irreparable injury” from not allowing unfettered immigration from terrorists countries and that his restraining order is in “public interest.”
How he may have come to that conclusion based on law and the Constitution is anyone’s guess. How Robart even came to the conclusion that the states have enough standing to file the suit at all is also anyone’s guess.
According to the US Constitution, immigration and naturalization law is exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal government:
US Constitution Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To… 4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.
This is even further codified in federal law. Democrat President Harry Truman signed the Suspension of Entry or Imposition of Restrictions Act into law after it was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress:
8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens – Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President:
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
But wait, there’s more…
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter restricted travel to the US on anyone from Iran. This was following the storming of the US embassy and hostages seized in Tehran and the overthrow of the Shah. No lawsuits. No protests.
Then President Obama placed further restrictions. The ban and the countries included in the ban are based on a law that Obama signed in December 2015. Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act which restricted travel from predominantly Muslim countries. This Obama law prohibited visas from people if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries.
In February 2016, Obama expanded the list of prohibited countries to include Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited. So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.
When Obama did it, there were no protests or riots. Hollywood stars didn’t come out wanting to blow up the White House. No one was dragged from their car and beaten unconscious in Berkeley. There wasn’t a peep of protest from the leftist main stream media and states didn’t file suit in federal court. If it was legal for Obama to do it, how did the same action, based on a law Obama signed and another law that is now sixty-five years old, suddenly become illegal and unconstitutional?
It isn’t. Trump’s action is completely legal and Constitutional.
In response to the judge’s ruling, Trump tweeted “”The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump said on Twitter early on Saturday. Trump has said “extreme vetting” of refugees and immigrants is needed to prevent terrorist attacks.” All true, but he, and the Republican-controlled Senate should have gone further. Robart should be investigated for impeachment.
According to the Constitution, the US Congress the power to impeach ANY federal official, including a U.S. District Judge. Given that Trump’s executive order is based on legal precedent, prior actions by the Obama administration, standing law and the US Constitution, and the states filing the original suit will not be irreparably damaged and have no standing, Robart is clearly an activist judge legislating from the bench and should be removed.
I can hear the outcry already. “You can’t just oust a judge because you don’t like the ruling!!” Correct. I would never support removing any judge for an unpopular ruling. However, this is more. This is an outright liberal snubbing of the law and the Constitution. For that, yes, a judge should be removed, especially if said ruling could put American lives at risk.