Virginia travel-ban judge: Foreigners have constitutional rights. We are no longer a sovereign nation
‘Courts are fundamentally flipping national sovereignty and federal immigration powers’
A federal judge in Virginia has dealt another blow to President Trump’s travel ban by issuing a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement within the state.
by Paul Bremmer
An overreaching federal judge in Virginia has dealt another blow to President Trump’s travel ban by issuing a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement within the state.
But U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s ruling – that it likely violates First Amendment protections of the freedom of religion, according to the Hill – is a stunner.
It would mean the judge believes Trump’s executive order discriminates against Muslims and that foreigners have constitutional rights.
That alarms Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review.
He said the judge is suggesting First Amendment protections apply to Muslims overseas who wish to come to the United States, meaning any person or terrorist in the world could potentially litigate their way into some sort of legal status in the United States.
“That is the premise of this judge’s ruling and several others, including Dolly Gee in California and James Robart in Washington, that the starting point is that everyone potentially has a right to immigrate,” Horowitz told WND. “That’s the starting point. They go from there: ‘Well, does the government have a substantial interest in denying’ their so-called right?
“And from there, it’s a political debate over how much evidence you think the government should produce to deny them entry,” he said.
“And, of course, in the estimation of the liberal courts, which have accepted the liberal political arguments behind open borders, no amount of evidence is ever going to be enough. But again, the broader point is why should the government have to provide any evidence if there’s no affirmative right to immigrate?”
Horowitz pointed out the judge is placing the onus on the government regarding matters of immigration and placing America’s national sovereignty in question.
“Any bar to clear that forces the government to produce evidence why a person shouldn’t be admitted creates a default right to immigrate and necessarily reduces our sovereignty, necessarily infringes upon our right to self-government,” Horowitz declared.
Horowitz, who wrote the book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America,” is wary of the growing power of the judicial branch.
He said conservative legal scholars miss the point if they think they could have prevented the Trump administration’s legal troubles by writing a better order or making a better argument in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Horowitz sees something much more fundamental shifting under the surface.
“The courts are fundamentally flipping national sovereignty and federal immigration powers on their head,” he said. “They’re not going after Trump. When you say something is unconstitutional, it’s not a matter of saying the president didn’t follow statutes; it’s a matter of saying even if Congress were to do a similar thing, it would be unconstitutional.”
Horowitz also believes it’s not just about immigration from a few Muslim countries, but all of illegal immigration as well.
“Once you force the government to produce evidence as to why they don’t want a certain class or certain individual immigrants, and once there’s either a First or 14th Amendment right to come here, that means that by default there is a right to remain, even for illegal aliens,” Horowitz reasoned.
He pointed out the ACLU is already planning a “rapid response team” to encumber every single deportation the Trump administration attempts.
Because the federal courts have become so reliably liberal, Horowitz expects them to side with the ACLU more often than not. In fact, Horowitz said it wouldn’t surprise him if the courts ban deportations, even though every single president has ordered them, including Barack Obama.
“The courts are so political,” he said. “There’s no jurisprudence, there’s no reading of the Constitution, there’s no reading of settled case law, there’s no reading of statutes. They literally look at their version of news reports of the Trump presidency, and they believe he’s a very bad person. They believe he’s very tyrannical, and, therefore, they’re going to take powers that he executes that have been used by every other president and give the sense that they’re anomalous and illegal and unconstitutional and throw them out.”
Horowitz pointed out the courts are creating a due process right for the entire world, which is a dangerous proposition.
He said people clearly have a right to due process before they are punished under the law, but due process does not apply to those who simply wish to enter the country and remain against the national will. He said the courts are “bastardizing” the concept of due process, and that is one of the reasons Trump will not be able to get anywhere with his immigration agenda under the current federal court system.
“Trump will not be able to even enforce existing law, much less use discretion delegated by Congress to ratchet up enforcement over and beyond that, because the courts will throw it out,” Horowitz said. “The courts have made it very clear that they don’t believe in our current laws.”
He said judges know what counts are the headlines written about their rulings, not the actual text of their opinions. Therefore, they can rule that Trump acted unconstitutionally and the media will run with that, because they believe Trump to be a tyrant.
“But what the judges ignore, according to Horowitz, are five statutes that give the president express authority, any time and for any reason, to regulate the immigrant flow in various ways. The powers have been used dozens of times in recent decades, Horowitz noted, and there has been very little litigation over them because most legal experts recognized they were legitimate presidential powers. But all that has changed under Trump.
It makes Horowitz wonder where the courts will finally stop their usurpation of presidential authority.
“Could a university now sue in court to say that they want a particular individual sitting in Yemen or Somalia to come join their university, and if you don’t let them in, we’ll sue you in court and the government will have to produce evidence to the contrary?” Horowitz wondered.
“So this is all to say when you create an affirmative right to immigrate, there is no limit to that Pandora’s Box you just opened up. We are no longer a sovereign nation.”
Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in black.