Donald Trump’s executive order travel ban met with predictable resistance from the activist judiciary, whether the US District Court judge in Seattle or the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite being called a “Muslim ban” by the purveyors of fake news and useful idiots in the GOP establishment, there is no mention of religion in Trump’s executive order. Instead it simply identifies 7 countries, already labeled as “countries of concern” by the Obama administration and temporarily halts unfettered travel from these countries to the US until a proper vetting system can be implemented.
Trump can certainly fight the Ninth Circuit, taking his case to the US Supreme Court. The four liberal justices are likely to side with the Ninth Circuit and there is no guarantee that Justices Roberts or Kennedy wouldn’t side with the four black-robed progressives, striking down the executive order. Even a tie vote would be a loser for Trump as the original Ninth Circuit decision would stand.
Wisely President Trump has decided to reword his executive order, excluding green card residency holders and those already in transit to the US. This “should” address the concerns of the Ninth Circuit. Key word is “should”. As the Ninth Circuit has its rulings frequently overturned by the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee that they will not block Trump’s new and reworded travel ban order. Ditto for the Supremes. Remember how Justice John Roberts twisted himself into a legal pretzel, basically rewriting the Obamacare statute to find it constitutional?
I have an additional recommendation for the Trump administration. It follows along the lines of a constitutional amendment introduced by Senator Rand Paul that could be called the “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” amendment. The amendment wording is simple. “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.”
Why not apply the same reasoning to illegal immigration? Start with sanctuary cities. There are about 300 jurisdictions in the US that have, “a policy that is non-cooperative and obstructs immigration enforcement.” The map of these cities, not surprisingly, is remarkably similar to the red-blue electoral map of the 2016 presidential election. Any guess as to how most sanctuary cities voted on November 8?
Until Trump’s travel pause is in place, refugees continue to stream into the US. The State Department doubled the rate of refugees from the seven targeted countries since Judge Robart’s February 3 ruling. 1,100 refugees and counting in one week.
The Trump administration should settle all of these refugees in sanctuary cities, specifically in the most progressive neighborhoods, whose residents so vehemently oppose anything and everything Trump, including his travel restriction.
In Judge Robart’s turf, settle the nice young men from Syria and Somalia in Bellevue or Mercer Island. In the back yard of the Ninth Circuit, place the refugees in Nob Hill or Berkeley. Don’t forget college towns like Boulder, Ithaca and Cambridge. Include Manhattan and the tony Washington, DC suburbs, home to the deep state bureaucrats and #NeverTrumpers.
Apply the NIMBY principle, not in my back yard. Those favoring a feckless, open border immigration policy should live with the consequences of such a policy. In their back yard.
Remember how ten years ago Ted Kennedy, staunch environmentalist, blocked a wind farm in the Nantucket Sound because it cluttered the view from the Kennedy vacation home in Hyannis Port? A perfect example of NIMBY.
Let’s see how the progressives in Westchester County or Santa Cruz enjoy becoming Germany with Angela Merkel’s open-arms refugee policy. Gangs of violent men roaming the streets, harassing and raping women, defecating in public pools, forcing women to cover their heads and bodies. How will this go over in these uber-tolerant enclaves? I’m sure the Ninth Circuit judges won’t mind a refugee resettlement home in their neighborhoods, along the route that their kids or grandkids walk to school.
It’s easy to be compassionate, open-minded and welcoming when ensconced within a gated community, country club and private school. Not so much from the real world of Kate Steinle and others terrorized or killed by unvetted or illegal immigrants.
No executive order is needed for this. Simply a memorandum from the director of Homeland Security as to where the refugees should be settled.
Just as Congress needs to reap the misery of their legislation, liberal activists and politicians should practice the tolerance they preach regarding illegal immigration.
I wonder how long my home town of Denver would remain a sanctuary city if a few refugee boarding houses popped up in the Bonnie Brae or Hilltop neighborhoods?
After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.