Justin Amash

Read Justin Amash's Powerful Condemnation of President Trump's Executive Order

'It's not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality,' writes Amash.

|

Amash
Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Rep. Justin Amash slammed President Trump's "unlawful" executive order barring certain immigrants from entering the U.S.

Demonstrating once again that he is among the most principled members of Congress, the libertarian-leaning Republican from Michigan neatly laid out the case against Trump's latest pronouncement.

"It's not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality," Amash wrote on Twitter. "If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress."

On his Facebook page, Amash explained that immigration law prohibits the government from denying entry to legal immigrants because of their country of origin, as Trump has done. And while it is legal for the government to prohibit refugees from entering, "banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise," wrote Amash. "We still should admit well-vetted persons."

President Obama's executive order did not violate the law, according to Amash, because it only applied to refugees.

Unfortunately, there are very few people in Congress who are willing to call out their own party when its leader breaks the law and undermines the rights of American citizens.

In the Senate, Republican Sen. Ben Sasse has also criticized Trump's immigration order for being "too broad." Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have expressed concern as well.

For more on the Trump administration's misguided anti-immigration crusade, read Reason's Nick Gillespie.

NEXT: World's Getting Better, but U.S. Democracy Isn't

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Has every writer here been instructed to write on same topic?

    Dear god

    1. Oh no! The writers are writing about what is in the news! Why? Why, God? Why?!?!

      1. To be fair when there’s a dozen articles of the same topic, and they just keep repeating the same points over and over again, I could go for a food truck article.

        1. “How Trump’s Executive Order will Harm the Food Truck Industry”

          1. I think you may have just replaced Nikki as the worst.

            You’re hired.

          2. Tulpa rejoices.

            1. *hijacks food truck, drives at Tulpa*

              1. *Waits for food spillage*
                Pillage before spoilage!

        2. Some days it does get a bit tedious. I certainly can’t be bothered to read 7 posts a day about the executive order.

          But sarcasmic makes a point that people seem to overlook. This is a blog about current events. It’s going to have lots of commentary about what’s in the news right now.

          That said, surely there is something else going on in the world with a decent libertarian angle.

          1. Reason having an outlook outside the United States (excepting the “everything’s great, the world’s improving” articles, Dalmia’s disingenious and biased India coverage, and some random articles about Canadian pot legalization)? That’s insane!

          2. A couple articles…fine

            7 8 whatever on same topic while there are other things gets tiring.

            Honestly i wouldnt read this site if it weren’t for comments

          3. I think the bigger problem is that the ‘lots of commentary’ tends to be ‘the same commentary, by different authors’.

            1. You mean commentary from a libertarian perspective? If you want Trump cheerleading and apologetics for expanding government power in the name of whitey insularism, there are sites for that. Sites that even claim to be libertarian.

              1. “You mean commentary from a libertarian perspective? If you want Trump cheerleading and apologetics for expanding government power in the name of whitey insularism, there are sites for that. Sites that even claim to be libertarian.”

                What the fuck is this blatant stupidity?

                What part of ” ‘the same commentary, by different authors’.” sends you off into that fever swamp of idiocy?

                What kind of imbecile reads what he wrote and thinks what you thought?

                1. Easy there, buddy. You are gonna pop a brain artery. Though I suppose you at less danger of that than others.

                  Let me try to explain it to you one more time. Reason employs a group of writers that provide commentary on current events from a libertarian perspective. When something occurs in the news, each of the writers provides their take on the same newsworthy event. Since libertarian philosophy is rather clear on many issues, they will express the same opinion, even though they may emphasize different points, reactions, or consequences, or draw slightly different conclusions.

                  1. That doesn’t explain your cunty, abrasive non-sequitur. Try yet again.

                2. That and … there is no One True Libertarian Perspective on … anything.

                  (“Libertarians are like Rabbis – ask two of them about something and you’ll get four opinions.”)

                  And while libertarians can be pure open borders types, they don’t need to be.

                  Lastly, “letting the State control immigration” is not an expansion of the State; it’s a power it already has and uses, bad or not.

                  (I mean, I think this EO is stupid and bad policy.

                  But Hayek would recognize it as within the rightful powers of the State, I’m pretty sure.

                  Rothbard wouldn’t, but they agree on almost nothing, so..)

                  1. Rothbard actually got all isolationist and bordery-statisty in his senility. The fact that it’s impossible to enforce borders voluntarily, and therefore to have borders without a coercive mechanism (i.e. the state) seemed to have slipped his attention in his dotage.

                    That explains a lot of the…. confusion over at mises.org and other Lew Rockwell publications, BT.

      2. It is the same news over and over again? Did anything else happen?

        1. Perhaps you can point to the other article about Justin Amash’s reaction?

          1. These points of legality have already been put forth multiple times

    2. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  2. Unfortunately, there are very few people in Congress who are willing to call out their own party when its leader breaks the law and undermines the rights of American citizens.

    Come now, Robert, there’s money to be made.

    1. Of course there is! Why else claim that an immigration order, affecting only non-US citizens, “undermines the rights of US citizens”?

      1. Re: Michael P,

        The immigration order does not affect the rights of US citizens directly, but they do so indirectly by violating the right of US Citizens to freely associate with whoever they wish to associate.

        1. Besides, for decades, the US did receive refugees from countries that were enemies of this country, like Cuba and Russia for instance.

          Trumpistas do have a penchant for facil arguments, I found.

          1. Haha you believe in that cuck concept of “freedom of association?” Only liberal jihadist cuck faggots believe that stuff. If it saves just one life, it’s worth it. I don’t care about the rule of law or liberties or any of that garbage. We have to ignore the constitution to save the constitution. America first!

          2. OldMexican! Long time no see. Welcome back!

        2. How? Does it prevent US citizens from going overseas to associate with them?

          (Is that somehow my right to associate with people is “violated” by them not being allowed to come to me?

          If so, that’s also a novel – and ludicrous – against jails. Oh, and wars and police, ’cause I can’t associate with dead people.

          Sorry, “free association” is not going to work here; there’s no facially plausible reading that magnifies it to that power.)

          1. The fact that Sigivaid refuses to respect my right to employ whom I will, and trade as I see fit, does not demonstrate that these rights do not exist. By this logic the existence of a single murderer disproves all claims of a right to life. Nonsense.

            I would suggest that, without a coherent understanding of natural rights philosophy, and how the concept of _rights_ is derived, one is wasting everyone’s time when one opines on the limits of rights.

            I mean, the logic that death disproves any rights is hilariously absurd. By identical logic, I don’t have a right to life, because I could be dead.

            I own myself, and the proceeds of my labor. Therefore, I can hire whomever I please with my labor. If the person I wish to hire is dead, then death is the very real cause of my inability to do as I please. If government tells that person he can’t come here, then government is the sole agency responsible for my inability to exercise my desires.

            Provide a justificatory basis for that ? the infringement on right ? don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. I know what my rights are, thank you very fucking much.

            And the fact that government is actually doing it doesn’t prove shit ? it’s a naturalistic fallacy to assert that “because government does infringe right ‘X’, then there should be no right ‘X’.

  3. GOD I love this country. 🙂

  4. Words and phrases millennial journalists are no longer allowed to use, because they use them poorly: Powerful, strong, horrifying, terrifying, okay/not okay, problematic, “That’s Wrong”, “All you need to know about…”

    Keep the list going.

      1. God, how could I forget either of those.

      2. “Destroyed” was the first that came to my mind, since that’s what Jon Stewart does to all of his opponents. Or so I’m told by millennials.

      1. Sha doobie!

    1. Writing articles about twitter posts

      Ludicrously

    2. pants shitting
      wankel rotary engine
      hippopotamus
      wastepaper basket

      1. +1 Are You Embarrassed Easily?

        Well played sir.

      2. The ol’ 13b – I lol’d. Thank you, sir.

    3. Mexican pork cloud

    4. Big government is worried people will find out about this representative’s one weird trick.

    5. Table of hawt ginch.

    6. Words and phrases millennial journalists are no longer allowed to use, because they use them poorly: Powerful, strong, horrifying, terrifying, okay/not okay, problematic, “That’s Wrong”, “All you need to know about…”

      You know who else should be on that list?

    7. All millennials are the same.

  5. Does that make even a lick of sense?

    What if we are at war with a country. We’d have to let those people in?

    “Oh why hello German army, come right in, it would be unlawful for us to decline to let you enter our country.”

    And that is literally the case here. We might be at war in a legal sense, but we are at war in any real meaning of the term. We might not be at war with specific countries, but with people from those countries.

    1. Re: Jeremy R,

      What if we are at war with a country. We’d have to let those people in?

      That’s not what Amash is talking about. Those are citizens of countries that are not at war with the US, so stop conflating two different things.

      1. The bombs falling on those same citizens beg to differ. Except Iran. No bombs there. (yet)

        In fact, the very justification offered by the Obama administration for its actions begs to differ. Obama declared that the authorization of force that Bush secured from congress for fighting terrorism covered all of these locations. This authorization did not include the formal language of a declaration of war, but it is legally a declaration of war.

        So yes, per the President of the United States – B. Obama – we are at war with all of those states, save Iran.

        1. Funnily enough, as Luke Rudkowski points out, these are the same 7 countries that have been targeted for regime change by that famous Wolfowitz memo.

        2. “This authorization did not include the formal language of a declaration of war, but it is legally a declaration of war.”

          Citation needed. I fairly sure that the one implies the other.

      2. From a libertarian perspective, if we are dropping bombs on them, we are at war with them.

        Everything else is semantics used to justify force to people far less intelligent than us.

        I have no problem with a temporary ban on countries we are at war with, and another that consistently chants “Death to America” in the streets. I get some people might be inconvenienced, and that sucks, but it is temporary until the vetting process can be reviewed and adjusted, and they are being decided on a case by case basis.

        1. So, every time anybody kills someone else, they are “at war with them”?

          Or does that only apply to collectives? What collective right not deriving from the individual could explain that?

          Or, they have to use guns and explosives? No, that can’t be it, because war used to be carried out with what were essentially large knives.

          Hmm. No, I’m pretty sure that “war” is a particular legal concept, not just a simple recognition of the mere fact of one person killing another.

          “Just semantics” is the sort of thing a person with a weak grasp of them might say. Unfortunately, I didn’t get “intelligent” enough to identify and oppose manipulation of the sort you suggest without a healthy dose of “semantics” along the way.

          That’s right, words mean things.

    2. And that is literally the case here

      Immediately contradicted by

      We might [not] be at war in a legal sense

      1. Just another guy who doesn’t know what “literally” means.

        1. That’s in the list of words that millennials shouldn’t be allowed to use anymore.

        2. He’s literally illiterate.

    3. Seems like Amash is saying that it is currently illegal because that’s what the law says and that congress needs to change the law, not the president. He is not saying that it is unconstitutional or can’t be legal to ban immigrants from certain countries.

      I’m not sure exactly what the law says, but it sounds like a pretty reasonable separation of powers argument assuming Amash’s assertion about the law is correct.

      1. The quota system currently in place also begs to differ with his conclusion. We have preferences for various countries, but there is also this:

        In addition to the numerical limits placed upon the various immigration preferences, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total amount of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This is not a quota to ensure that certain nationalities make up seven percent of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration patterns to the United States.

        Illegal immigration screws that up, of course. With an order of magnitude or more people coming in that way than via routes like the H1B visa program that brings us skilled workers, and almost all from Mexico and central America.

        If Trump had half a brain he’d pull a Reagan and work toward a free trade zone of the Americas and work to push all these countries to fix their legal systems so that their economies can flourish, shutting off the supply of economic refugees.

        1. If Trump had half a brain he’d pull a Reagan and work toward a free trade zone of the Americas and work to push all these countries to fix their legal systems so that their economies can flourish, shutting off the supply of economic refugees.

          Instead he’ll do exactly the opposite.

      2. Maybe if he would cite the actual fucking law he claims is being violated…

        Is that too goddamn much to ask?

        I honestly want to know the legal arguments. I realize that violates the rules of uncivil discourse that is mandated in this Twittard/Derpbook age we live in, but I’m just weird like that.

      3. It seems to me like Amash is making shit up because he disagrees with it on principle.

    4. What if we are at war with a country. We’d have to let those people in?

      “Oh why hello German army, come right in, it would be unlawful for us to decline to let you enter our country.”

      Here, read this. It might help you avoid looking like a moron in the future.

      1. Problem is we are at war with pretty much all of those countries. So this is the exact argument that people are making. How is it absurd to point that out? Because he used the word “army”?

  6. What I find amusing is how easily the Trump Channel News (previously K own as Fox News) conflates greencard holders (i.e. permanent residents) and visa holders with ‘refugees’, every time they call this a ‘refugee ban’ when in fact it is not a ‘refugee’ ban but a complete ban on immigration from those selected countries. They don’t even dare call it what it is.

    1. Good point. Though also shouldnt call it a muslim ban either.

      Perhaps a ban on mainly muslims from these 7 countries

      1. Coverage on this was very sharp last night on the networks. They are clearly working with a strategist somewhere.

        NBC had a story on the “Muslim ban” and featured a family of Christians fleeing Syria and an Iraqi translator who finally received his US visa after many years. Both were turned back – with the bonus story of the Syrian family having quit their jobs, sold their home and all of their possessions, excepting a suitcase of clothes, and having nowhere to go.

        It really was amazing reporting. To be able to find those very specific examples in a matter of two days is impressive. Two examples of the exact people Trump says we want to let in.

        Funny how the networks never saw fit to report on the 25k visas that congress set aside for Iraqi and Afghan collaborators but Obama never got around to fully utilizing. Or how his 6 month ban got a bunch of them killed. But one of those guys got held up at the airport after years of being held up in Iraq by the Obama administration…. and they found him!

        Anyway, better late than never. Welcome to the fight, I suppose.

        1. Ah, but Obama was The Lightbringer, and any criticism of The Lightbringer is racist (IT IS KNOWN), and since being called a racist is literally the worst thing you can be accused of being – even worse than being called a murderer or a rapist – they couldn’t criticize him no matter how much his actions violated their alleged principles.

          Or maybe they’re just a bunch of unprincipled hacks.

      2. Also not an Arab ban, for similar reasons. Maybe a “dysfunctional shithole ideal for ISIS and Al Qaeda to hide in, and also Iran because we just hate them” ban.

      3. It’s not even a ban, it’s a moratorium for however many days.

    2. but a complete ban on immigration from those selected countries.

      From the Executive Order

      (g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

      Doesn’t sound very complete to me.

      From this article

      The DHS said on Sunday night that green card holders would be allowed to board U.S.-bound flights, but would be subjected to additional scrutiny upon arrival.

      It is easier to report on the twitters and the facebooks though.

  7. Trump honestly believes that Peter Thiel will invent a drug that will make him young again. I shit you not.

    1. Weigel, buddy, Reason’s own Ron Bailey believes the same shit. It’s like his second favorite subject to write about after the manmade global warming bullshit.

    2. Why Peter Thiel? He is not a doctor or even particularly brilliant.

  8. People are no longer willing to send money to the feds to extort them with manic hysteria about ‘terrists gonna getcha!’ Fortunately a few people in our government get that. Welcome to New Somalia. 🙂

    1. But some of you are willing to send money to the feds with manic hysteria about the korparashuns gunna getcha. So I guess that means we remain the new North Korea 🙂

  9. So the green card for immigrants and visa for immigrants issue here as pertains to law

    Didnt green card thing get resolved? I saw but couldnt confirm. What about visa

  10. Weird how the Weigelian scum in the JournoList didn’t say a word when Obama did a scaled down version of the same exact thing a few years ago.

    And their lame, pathetic defense of “we didn’t know about it until well after it happened” is exactly that: lame and pathetic.

    1. Weird how the Trumpkin scum blame everything on Obama and then say, “Well Obama did it too!”

      1. Quit pretending that you’re a Muslim, Weigel you pathetic loser. And pay up your fucking bet.

      2. We are gonna hear this every time someone criticizes Il Douche. Remember all the bitching about liberals blaming every Obama fuck up on Bush? Well, now you will hear everything being blamed on Obama, or Obama did it too, or Obama was worse.

        Because the two sides are exactly the same.

  11. I fully expected Obama to end drone strikes by the end of his term. I was thoroughly disappointed that he didn’t – though I gained a new appreciation for the forces that were arrayed against him. Now I fully expect Trump to do the same, though not for the same reasons.

  12. So far, nothing on the Inaugural Day walk where it was obvious that the bodyguards had fake, plastic arms with their weaponized real hands tucked under their coats.

    Still only seen on Spanish-language YouTubes. The Anglo-press still hasn’t picked up on it.

    It’s a hoot!

  13. Amash explained that immigration law prohibits the government from denying entry to legal immigrants …

    Wait, what? I don’t do derpbook, but does that any fucking sense at all? So we have to admit illegal immigrants? What the fuck?

    1. Reading comprehension. Amash is saying the feds have to let legal immigrants — the ones with green cards — back in the U.S. when they temporarily leave the U.S. for whatever reason. It doesn’t mean that the feds have to let in any random person without a green card.

  14. You know, if the title of this piece was

    “Read Justin Amash’s Powerful Tweet about President trump’s EO”

    We’d probably just pass it by as the clickbait that it is.

    And, isn’t the green card thing that’s got Amash all worked up corrected now?

    In fact, going over a lot of these articles, it’s the green card part that’s got everyone all aflutter.

    And it’s been fixed. .

  15. Nine articles on the exact same topic, rehashing the exact same complaints, comparing the executive order to ‘Japanese internment camps’ and calling it a ‘Muslim ban’. What is the difference between Vox and Reason, now?

    Further, I appreciate Amash and this is not a knock against him, but you should be noted that banning foreign nationals from specific countries has been done multiple times. Including Jimmy Carter with Iranians and Bill Clinton with Haitians. This is not to say that those actions were legal, either, but context would be helpful.

    Every time the ‘Resistance’ screams ‘It’s not normal’ about something that is very much normal, people start to pay less and less attention.

    1. What is the difference between Vox and Reason, now?

      Almost none at all.

      1. It wouldn’t be hard to write an informative article about this EO. You could discuss the powers of the executive under the INA, how the VISA and Asylum and refugee process actually works, the arguments for and against the legality of this and the thinking behind it as well as the criticisms of those.

        Reason seems to be under the impression that you can’t be against something and also be even handed and informative. It is just bad, lazy writing.

        1. “Mainstream” media = lazy, dishonest media, and Reason is no different. I’m still seeing a lot of JournoList hacks calling it a “Muslim ban”, even though some of the largest Muslim countries in the world like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia aren’t included at all.

          1. Every conservative seems to hate the mainstream media for their bias/dishonesty. And apparently even Reason is now “mainstream”, because they’re critical of Trump. So who do you recommend for fair and balanced reporting???

            1. I don’t think Reason is ‘mainstream’, but I do think they’ve jumped the shark on this issue.

      2. The comments here are at least amusing if you’ve been around a while to understand the various regulars.

  16. He is wrong. It is totally lawful to do this. It may be the wrong thing to do, but that is a different question. Amish doesn’t help his credibility by confusing “I disagree with this” with “this is illegal”.

    This is absurd on its face. If it is illegal to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality, then the government wouldn’t have the power to ban immigrants from countries with whom we are at war. I understand Amish doesn’t agree with the EO. But that doesn’t excuse him from making a sensible objection. There is nothing powerful about this. It is pathetic.

    1. You forgot to give a link to your assertion that Amash, an Arab and a sitting congressman, doesn’t understand immigration law that would affect many friends and family. Not an appeal to authority, just saying that you need to back up your assertion that someone who would likely understand the relevant law quite thoroughly is wrong.

      And saying that you can’t ban green card holders on the basis of nationality in peacetime because “What about wartime!” is absurd.

      1. I don’t know that he doesn’t understand immigration law. But he is wrong here.

        Section 1182(f), of the Immigration and Naturalization Act states: “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”

        That is pretty clear he can do it.

        1. For a government lawyer, you seem pretty uninformed.

          1. Nothing says uninformed like citing specific provisions of statute that allow the President to do this. Troll somewhere else.

      2. That is immigration law 101. And if Amish doesn’t know that, he doesn’t know anything about immigration law. And if he does know it, he is lying here. It is that simple.

  17. “banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise,”

    Tacit admission that we should expect more “Allahu Ackbar” in the near future?

    In a sane world, wouldn’t that belief support such a ban?

    Consider this:

    Admit moderate refugees (if you can work out a good way of determining that), depriving ISIS of a population they want dead by protecting them in the West, thereby enraging ISIS. They send more terrorists to the West to destroy the infidels.

    Don’t admit refugees. ISIS recruits those people or their children (see, the West does not care about you), weaponizes their religion (we told you all along that you should follow the prophet), and now there are more terrorists.

    Either way we are fucked. But we’re not allowed to look at the root cause of the problem: a religion that tends towards radicalization rather than away from it.

    1. No one seems to ever explain in detail why not admitting refugees from failed states that are known to have a large presence is so harsh and unwise. If the country is a failed state, it is going to be pretty hard to determine which refugees are dangerous and which are not. Why is the solution to every refugee crisis to just let them all come here at taxpayer expense?

      1. Because that’s what our nation is all about.

        Potato famine? C’mon over!

        Sectarian religious persecution? C’mon over!

        Italian laborers and farm workers seeking temporary work? C’mon over!

        Fleeing communism? C’mon over!

        Sure, the people already here complained about it each time, but that’s how we got to where we are. Well, that and the slave trade. Oh, and “manifest destiny” wiping out the natives. Mustn’t forget that bit.

        1. And forget the long stretches of our history when we let virtually no immigrants in. I guess that went down the memory hole as well.

          1. The “long stretches” being “from the rise of Hitler to the end of WWII?

            http://www.migrationpolicy.org…..-Residents

        2. On the other hand, we didn’t have a massive welfare apparatus to attach those people to in those historical situations. Now we do. Before they had good reason to work hard and integrate. Survival is a great motivator. Now immigrants can accept hand-outs, stay in enclaves where they don’t have to learn English or integrate in any appreciable way, and get mired in proggy serfdom. Most importantly, they’ll vote Democrat.

          But I’m just a cold-hearted libertarian pointing that one out. It’s all about the money with us because we’re evil and “fuck you, got mine.” Not at all about thwarting the perverse incentives or having a valid reason to call for the state to shrink substantially.

          Time to polish my monocle and whip my orphan slaves.

    2. In a sane world, collectivist arguments like that would hold no sway over people’s minds. We’re talking about individuals here. Such as individuals who have actively aided our side, and now face death if they don’t flee the country they’re living in, being turned away because they’re being viewed as part of a collective, some of said collective who are bad actors and some who are innocent.

      1. No, in a sane world we would understand the reality that you can never fully judge the risk associated with an individual before entering the country. And it would also understand that we are under no obligation to let anyone in and there is a limited number of people we can let in. So why would we choose to let people in from failed states who present the real risk of being terrorists when we could let people in from countries that don’t harbor ISIS and function well enough to allow some reasonable assessment of who they are?

      2. In a sane world, collectivist arguments like that would hold no sway over people’s minds.

        And now you grasp my point. Trying to use that specific fear against people because you don’t like this policy is a collectivist argument. Thus, Amash is saying exactly what the proggies are, and it’s a shitty fucking argument.

        As soon as you head down the “this makes us less safe” route, then you have to start asking why. And that is my dissection of that. Supporting our ideals with retarded rhetoric is the surest way to being ignored as a laughingstock. If Amash has a good argument, it should be presented. What I heard was not.

  18. If memory serves, we have had, and perhaps still do, max number quotas on immigrants from specific countries and/ or regions. So, we do discriminate on the basis of national origin. I have heard the wisdom of such quotas being debated, but I have not heard that they were ruled illegal. I think Amash may be wrong here.

    1. Here’s the law Amash cites:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

      Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.

      So it would appear there’s a maximum number of the total share of visas that can be assigned to any one country, but they can’t just deny everyone from certain countries outright. And in any event, it would purely be the dominion of Congress, not something that can be just set by Imperial Decree.

      1. Yes they can. That is not the only provision in the INA

        Section 1182(f), of the Immigration and Naturalization Act states: “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”

        Remember, these seven countries were determined by the Obama administration to be failed states and high risks of terrorism. That is what gives Trump the justification to do this. Amish is not being honest about the law here.

      2. My point was that the very existence of the max quotas means when those are used up then potential immigrants are being refused based on national origin.

      3. And in any event, it would purely be the dominion of Congress, not something that can be just set by Imperial Decree.

        I see you’ve played pen-y/phon-y before.

  19. Copied and pasted from another blog – not my work:

    In March 2017 there is an outbreak of a new and virulent strain of Ebola Zaire virus ? 90% mortality rate, airborne transmission. 50,000 new cases are being diagnosed a week.

    Pursuant to 1182(f), President Trump orders that there be no entries for residents of the Democratic Republic of Congo for a period of 90 days, during which time public health officials are to determine whether meaningful controls can be put in place in the US to prevent an outbreak of an Ebola Zaire pandemic in the United States.

    After 90 days, the CDC and Sec. of HHS report to the Pres. that one necessary component of a comprehensive plan to protect the US public against the outbreak of a potential pandemic of Ebola Zaire is to require all applicants for immigrant visas from the Congo to provide verifiable public health records showing they were vaccinated against Ebola Zaire within the last six months, and this record must be certified as authentic by the highest public health agency in Zaire and a World Health Organization recognized NGO. Pres. Trump agrees, and the Sec. of State establishes immigrant visa application procedures which include within the review process the requirement of the vaccination record.

    1. …continued

      But at the time the Sec. of State establishes this requirement, there is no available vaccine for the Ebola Zaire virus, so its impossible for any applicant to provide a vaccination record as required.

      The Sec. of State has “discriminated” against residents of the Congo in creating a different procedure for processing immigrant visa applications, and that is within the scope of the exception to the “non-discrimination” language of Sec. 1152(a)(1)(A), so that seems to be on solid ground.

      And he initially acted under Section 1182(f) so that public health officials could “determine the procedures” for processing immigrant visa applications.

      Can someone give me an analysis ? legal or otherwise ? that if Pres. Trump acted in this fashion in response to a virus outbreak, why is he not able to act in this fashion in the face of what he deems to be lax and ineffective vetting standards for nationals or travelers from 7 specific countries identified as having governments which have sponsored terrorism?

  20. This is all so stupid.

    Remember how people got all outraged over Kate Steinle’s murder? They were quick to denounce illegals as rapists and murderers. The left defended illegals as poor desperate people just seeking better economic opportunities. BOTH are right, and BOTH are wrong. Some illegals are violent criminals. And, some illegals just want a better future for themselves. What polarizes the debate so stupidly is the rhetorical collectivization of this group of people, or any group of people. Instead of making these gross generalizations, why not just treat individuals according to their own merits?

    Same thing with refugees/immigrants/green card holders/whatever. The right will point to them and scream TERRORISTS!!! The left will point to them and scream DIVERSITY!!! They’re both right and they’re both wrong. Some undoubtedly really are terrorists wanting to cause harm. Some undoubtedly really are just fleeing their war-ravaged homeland. I happen to think there are far more in the latter category than in the former category. But we don’t even have to make such assessments if we just treat individuals like individuals. All of us want to be judged and regarded on our own merits (or lack thereof). Let’s extend the same courtesy to others.

    1. There are lots of ways to help people in war ravaged lands that don’t involve sending them to a country whose cultural and legal system they have a fair likelihood of being hostile to. I mean, if you want conflict and terrorism and ordinary crimes and retaliatory hate crimes, I guess go ahead.

      1. Or, maybe we shouldn’t judge people by some presumed notion of cultural rigidity.

    2. But we don’t even have to make such assessments if we just treat individuals like individuals. All of us want to be judged and regarded on our own merits (or lack thereof). Let’s extend the same courtesy to others.

      *puts chemjeff in the ‘supports’ column re:extreme vetting*

      1. If “extreme vetting” means “we decide whether you can come here based on what you, personally, have done, as best as we can determine it”, then yes.

        But if “extreme vetting” means “we decide whether you can come here based on some collective characteristic that may even be outside of your control, and ignore your individual merits or reasons for wanting to come here”, then no.

  21. Guess I’m not the libertarian I thought I was because try as hard as I can, I’m not able to work up a hard-on for this subject like Reason is. Reading this site you’d think The End was nigh.

    It’s my understanding this this is a temporary measure, more of a “brake-tapping” than an all-out ban. I thought hijacking the language to inflame emotion was something only leftists did?

    1. I thought hijacking the language to inflame emotion was something only leftists did?

      In fairness, it’s something every faction does from time to time, although I would argue certain factions run to that well more frequently than others.

  22. “”It’s not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality,” “If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.”

    Amash doesn’t know how these things work. It’s Congress responsibility to do what the President wants, and if it doesn’t, the President has a pen and a phone. And his pen is bigger than Congress’s.

    1. Let the “conservative” legal bloggers explain things to Amash – if a law is outdated and cramps the President’s national-security powers, then the President can update the law by making it mean what it *ought* to mean. Congress plays no role in this, haven’t you heard of the separation of powers?

  23. It’s lawful and proper to ban anyone on basis of nationality, BHO did it 2 weeks ago to all Cubans and not one of these twitter aces said a thing. If some congressman wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress. He can’t just pick and choose or just make things up. Amash explained that immigration law ‘prohibits the government from denying entry to legal immigrants because of their country of origin’, as Obama has done several times. All the splitting of hairs and minutia of literal interpretations does not change that. Whining on like Amash and the liberals are doing is just highlighting their hypocrisy. Amash admits that Trump can prohibit refugees from entering, he just does’t like the details. Pass a law you CS. That is the job you were elected to do, not be a twit.

    And as for the “We still should admit well-vetted persons” line, we already know that huge numbers of these ‘Syrians’ aren’t from Syria at all. Some vetting process.

  24. How do you vet people from countries that barely have a functioning government?

  25. Unlawful?

    “U.S. Code ‘ Title 8 ‘ Chapter 12 ‘ Subchapter II ‘ Part II 😕 1182 section (f)- Inadmissible aliens

    (f) 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.”

    Really? Unlawful? I’m sorry but Amash looks to be yet another ignorant illiterate member of Congress with presumptions that his opinions are the same as the Law and the Constitution. If he is going to challenge the President on the Law he had damn well better know the Law. Something that he clearly does not. It does not matter if he is a friendly Congressional Ignoramas who supports your side or ideology. He is still simply yet another ignoramus in Congress.

    1. Plus, his background may play a part in all of this, as well. He is not a Trump fan and he is of Syrian descent!

  26. i agree with amash.

    it should be added though that this debate illustrates an important point that’s being glossed over. the law has been so muddled with politics and constitutional analysis reduced to public opinion that any informed discussion is practically impossible. when you start taking polls to discern the quality of judicial review, then you undermine the purpose of a whole branch of government. it becomes impossible to understand, for instance, that 1965 happened after 1952, or to even care much about the rights of others so long as you feel a little better. this is why politics becoming all encompassing is a cancer…it becomes our lives, rather than apart of them.

  27. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  28. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her check was $21762 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can find out more

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  29. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.