Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

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.

Robby Soave | 1.31.2017 7:15 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom
(Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom)
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.

Admitting that both parties routinely ignore the Constitution, reject the Rule of Law, and erode liberty is the first step to recovery.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) January 30, 2017

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.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

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

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

Justin AmashDonald TrumpImmigration
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (139)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. american socialist   8 years ago

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

    Dear god

    1. sarcasmic   8 years ago

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

      1. John Titor   8 years ago

        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. lap83   8 years ago

          "How Trump's Executive Order will Harm the Food Truck Industry"

          1. John Titor   8 years ago

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

            You're hired.

          2. RBS   8 years ago

            Tulpa rejoices.

            1. Swiss Servator   8 years ago

              *hijacks food truck, drives at Tulpa*

              1. bacon-magic   8 years ago

                *Waits for food spillage*
                Pillage before spoilage!

        2. Zeb   8 years ago

          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. John Titor   8 years ago

            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. american socialist   8 years ago

            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. John Titor   8 years ago

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

            1. american socialist   8 years ago

              Good point.

            2. sarcasmic   8 years ago

              true

            3. Chipper Morning Wood   8 years ago

              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. A frilly pink thing   8 years ago

                "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. Chipper Morning Wood   8 years ago

                  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. butt-head   8 years ago

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

                2. Sigivald   8 years ago

                  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. marshaul   8 years ago

                    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.

                    1. marshaul   8 years ago

                      W. BTW.

      2. american socialist   8 years ago

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

        1. Jordan   8 years ago

          Perhaps you can point to the other article about Justin Amash's reaction?

          1. american socialist   8 years ago

            These points of legality have already been put forth multiple times

    2. benit   8 years ago

      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. A Cynic's Guide to Zen   8 years ago

    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. Michael P   8 years ago

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

      1. OldMexican Blankety Blank   8 years ago

        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. OldMexican Blankety Blank   8 years ago

          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. Ship of Theseus   8 years ago

            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. Chipper Morning Wood   8 years ago

            OldMexican! Long time no see. Welcome back!

        2. Sigivald   8 years ago

          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. marshaul   8 years ago

            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. dajjal   8 years ago

    GOD I love this country. 🙂

  4. John Titor   8 years ago

    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. american socialist   8 years ago

      Destroyed
      Obliterated

      1. John Titor   8 years ago

        God, how could I forget either of those.

      2. dantheserene   8 years ago

        "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.

    2. american socialist   8 years ago

      No, ....
      Shattered

      1. sarcasmic   8 years ago

        Sha doobie!

    3. american socialist   8 years ago

      Writing articles about twitter posts

      Ludicrously

    4. american socialist   8 years ago

      Literally

    5. american socialist   8 years ago

      Epic
      Takedown

    6. Zeb   8 years ago

      pants shitting
      wankel rotary engine
      hippopotamus
      wastepaper basket

      1. Jake Stone   8 years ago

        +1 Are You Embarrassed Easily?

        Well played sir.

      2. steedamike   8 years ago

        The ol' 13b - I lol'd. Thank you, sir.

    7. RBS   8 years ago

      Mexican pork cloud

    8. Fist of Etiquette   8 years ago

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

    9. Mongo   8 years ago

      Table of hawt ginch.

    10. Cynical Asshole   8 years ago

      Ridiculous/ ridiculously

    11. mad.casual   8 years ago

      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?

    12. dantheserene   8 years ago

      Not okay.

    13. Utilitarian   8 years ago

      All millennials are the same.

  5. JeremyR   8 years ago

    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. OldMexican Blankety Blank   8 years ago

      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. Cyto   8 years ago

        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. Chipper Morning Wood   8 years ago

          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. marshaul   8 years ago

          "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. Deven   8 years ago

        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. marshaul   8 years ago

          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. Jordan   8 years ago

      And that is literally the case here

      Immediately contradicted by

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

      1. Ship of Theseus   8 years ago

        Just another guy who doesn't know what "literally" means.

        1. Cynical Asshole   8 years ago

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

        2. Chipper Morning Wood   8 years ago

          He's literally illiterate.

    3. Zeb   8 years ago

      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. Cyto   8 years ago

        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. Cynical Asshole   8 years ago

          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. DrZaius   8 years ago

        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. Deven   8 years ago

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

    4. Cynical Asshole   8 years ago

      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. Deven   8 years ago

        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. OldMexican Blankety Blank   8 years ago

    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. american socialist   8 years ago

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

      Perhaps a ban on mainly muslims from these 7 countries

      1. Cyto   8 years ago

        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. Cynical Asshole   8 years ago

          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. ant1sthenes   8 years ago

        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. DrZaius   8 years ago

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

    2. westernsloper   8 years ago

      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. dajjal   8 years ago

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

    1. Domestic Dissident   8 years ago

      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. Chipper Morning Wood   8 years ago

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

  8. dajjal   8 years ago

    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. rudehost   8 years ago

      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. american socialist   8 years ago

    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. Domestic Dissident   8 years ago

    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. dajjal   8 years ago

      Weird how the Trumpkin scum blame everything on Obama and then say, "Well Obama did it too!"

      1. Domestic Dissident   8 years ago

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

      2. Chipper Morning Wood   8 years ago

        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. dajjal   8 years ago

    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. Mongo   8 years ago

    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. Drake   8 years ago

    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. prolefeed   8 years ago

      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. Azathoth!!   8 years ago

    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. Just Say'n   8 years ago

    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. Domestic Dissident   8 years ago

      What is the difference between Vox and Reason, now?

      Almost none at all.

      1. John   8 years ago

        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. Domestic Dissident   8 years ago

          "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. Eric   8 years ago

            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. Just Say'n   8 years ago

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

      2. DrZaius   8 years ago

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

  16. John   8 years ago

    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. prolefeed   8 years ago

      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. John   8 years ago

        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. Hail Rataxes   8 years ago

          For a government lawyer, you seem pretty uninformed.

          1. John   8 years ago

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

      2. John   8 years ago

        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. Zero Sum Game   8 years ago

    "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. John   8 years ago

      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. Cyto   8 years ago

        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. John   8 years ago

          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. prolefeed   8 years ago

            The "long stretches" being "from the rise of Hitler to the end of WWII?

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

        2. Zero Sum Game   8 years ago

          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. prolefeed   8 years ago

      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. John   8 years ago

        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. Zero Sum Game   8 years ago

        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. Mickey Rat   8 years ago

    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. paranoid android   8 years ago

      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. John   8 years ago

        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. Mickey Rat   8 years ago

        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. mad.casual   8 years ago

        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. bendover   8 years ago

    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. bendover   8 years ago

      ...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. chemjeff   8 years ago

    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. ant1sthenes   8 years ago

      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. chemjeff   8 years ago

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

    2. mad.casual   8 years ago

      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. chemjeff   8 years ago

        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. Jake Stone   8 years ago

    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. Gadfly   8 years ago

      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. The Fusionist   8 years ago

    ""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. The Fusionist   8 years ago

      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. Ragoftag   8 years ago

    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. IceTrey   8 years ago

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

  25. patches44   8 years ago

    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. celtvin   8 years ago

      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. josh   8 years ago

    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. fenazuful   8 years ago

    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. kofolecuju   8 years ago

    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. jaliben   8 years ago

    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 log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Mothers Are Losing Custody Over Sketchy Drug Tests

Emma Camp | From the June 2025 issue

Should the
Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Jason Russell | From the June 2025 issue

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

Billy Binion | 5.9.2025 5:01 PM

The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers

Eric Boehm | 5.9.2025 4:05 PM

A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate

Jacob Sullum | 5.9.2025 3:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!