Saturday, September 16, 2017

Supremes back Trump on refugee ban for now

The U.S. Supreme Court has bigly backed President Trump's travel ban, saying he can stop thousands of unvetted refugees from entering the United States while the justices prepare to hear a broader challenge to the policy where liberals can hopefully allow the floodgates to open and all hell to break loose as illegal immigrants and so-called refugees to flood into the country.

The Supremes put on hold a federal appeals court ruling in which a judge, trying to make a name for himself in the progressive community, said that the President of the United States couldn't apply his travel ban to approximately 24,000 refugees once a resettlement agency promised they'd provide basic services for them.

The high court is scheduled to hear arguments October 10th on Trump's travel order, which imposes a 90-day ban on primarily unvetted Muslims entering the U.S. from six Islamic theocracies and a 120-day ban on refugees.

The whole purpose of the ban is simply to vet these people because vetting is smart and ISIS has promised us that some of their scum-crumpets will be among the innocent. Not vetting the refugees is stupidly suicidal, in spite of the lower courts with their leftist judges saying the President of the United States overstepped his authority and unconstitutionally target Muslims. 

The small-time judges are trying to grab power over the president and make themselves more powerful among their leftist peers.

The high court cleared part of the ban on June 26th. It is to take place for now and ruled that the U.S. had to admit people with a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity."

In July, the Supreme Court ruled that those with grandparents and cousins in the U.S. are among those who must be admitted. Of course we're never certain of familial ties and basically have to take their word for it, but the administration said Monday it wouldn't ask the court to revisit that issue.

The Trump administration asked, in the same filing, to reinstate a broad version of the refugee ban because the so-called assurance agreements don't meet the "bona fide" test as those accords are between the resettlement agency and the government.

"An assurance agreement does not create any relationship whatsoever with the refugee," acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued.

Hawaii, where former president Obama was allegedly born, challenged the Trump policy. They urged the justices to allow the appeals court ruling to stand, saying assurance agreements require resettlement agencies to make large investments in preparing for the arrival of refugees. They also believe the refugees don't pose any true security threat, but obviously they're trying to blow smoke where the sun doesn't shine.

"Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the government has pointed to in the past," Hawaii argued. "By the government's own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security."

If government agencies were so great at risk analysis, why are there so many lawsuits against drug companies when we have the FDA?



No comments:

Post a Comment

UN official and Hamas supporter resigns

His book: "Lipless in Gaza" Martin Griffiths, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator (U...