The safety of the American people and national interest should come before “inclusiveness and cultural diversity,” a pro-American immigration reformer says.
Brian Lonergan of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a law firm dedicated to defending Americans against the negative impact of mass immigration, wrote in an op-ed that President Trump’s travel ban was being used as a “political football” while putting the lives of Americans at risk.
The chief executive of the United States — no matter his or her party affiliation — has been endowed with the authority to safeguard the country’s national security and protect its citizens. Most pertinent to this case, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives the president sweeping powers to restrict the classes of aliens that can enter the country. One of the president’s most invaluable resources is a corps of military and civilian advisers as well as the vast assets of our federal government to deliver the best possible information on threats to the republic and how to mitigate them. The president — with the implicit support of the American people via his win in the Electoral College—is able to make highly informed decisions on complex problems of national importance.
By virtue of State of Hawaii v. Trump, District Judge Derrick Watson is now de facto empowered and deemed better suited to make those decisions over the president. A political appointee with no apparent background in national security matters and no comparable expertise to advise him, Judge Watson has superseded the authority of the president and is essentially rewriting American immigration and national security laws. It would be hard to argue that this is the government the Framers had in mind.
There are more than a few examples of why the lower courts are ill-suited to rule on such cases considering the stakes involved. From the original ruling, Judge Watson endorsed the argument that the travel ban would harm the University of Hawaii by not allowing students from the countries specified in the ban to attend. Think about that for a moment. The president is trying to prevent terrorists from entering the United States from countries identified — by the Obama administration, no less — as security threats. That is considered by the court to be a lesser threat than a lack of cultural diversity at the University of Hawaii. Another plaintiff’s claim that the order unfairly targets Muslims rings hollow given that the majority of Muslim countries around the world are not included in the order at all.
Lonergan noted that the potential risk foreign nationals through the refugee resettlement program could cause to the American public “should take priority over inclusiveness and cultural diversity.”
“There is a violent case history where refugees from countries on the travel ban list have been allowed entry into the United States, only to go on rampages with the intention of killing innocent American citizens,” Lonergan wrote.
Watson halted Trump’s refugee reform executive order that would stem the flow of foreign refugees to the U.S. The executive order, as Breitbart News reported, was halted because Watson claimed it infringed on the rights of Muslims.
A recent poll by Pulse Opinion Research found that 52 percent of Americans said they would like to see 25,000 or less refugees admitted to the U.S. per year. Of that 52 percent, 39 percent said the U.S. should “admit none and instead assist refugees in safe zones close to their home countries,” a proposal originally touted by Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but has yet to be enacted by the State Department.
As Breitbart News reported, Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly advised him to stick to his America First agenda on refugees by halting all refugee resettlement. This plan, though, has yet to come to fruition.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.