The courts aren’t just stripping the president of his authority to stop national security threats. They aren’t just endangering Americans. They aren’t just basing their rulings on pure ideology instead of the law.
The American judiciary is creating an “affirmative right to immigrate” to the United States for every person on earth, says Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review and author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America.”
He explains the federal judges who blocked President Trump’s immigration order are challenging the most fundamental aspect of American sovereignty.
“Even President Trump’s original orders were grounded in precedent and statute,” Horowitz told WND. “But these federal judges who have issued a halt to President Trump’s new executive orders have gone even farther. Not only did they simply refuse to address the legislation that gives Trump the authority to issue these orders, they started creating new rights out of thin air, which gives practically everyone in the world a future affirmative right to immigrate to the United States. Obviously, that means the end of the United States in any meaningful sense.”
Last Friday, Judge William Connelly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a temporary restraining order against President Trump’s ban on some travel from terror-producing nations. On Wednesday, a judge in Hawaii placed a temporary restraining order on President Trump’s executive order. The next morning, another federal judge in Maryland joined in the political strategy. At a rally in Nashville Wednesday night, President Trump slammed the block as “an unprecedented judicial overreach.”
Horowitz said it is hard to disagree with the president. If anything, he claims, Trump is understating the case.
“The reasoning that was used in these cases doesn’t just undermine statute, precedent and law, it essentially repudiates the concepts of citizenship and sovereignty altogether,” Horowitz fumed.
“For example, in the case in Wisconsin, the judge blocked the order because an asylee living in America feared the ban might prevent his wife and daughter from coming to America at some point in the future. But if the order doesn’t apply to those already approved for asylum, from where does his supposed fear derive?
“Of course, there’s also something way more important at stake. A court can’t just demand any alien in the world be admitted to the United States. Yet the court is not only claiming this power, but it is granting standing to someone who hasn’t even suffered any consequences from the proposed ban. There’s no ‘injury-in-fact’ in legal parlance. The only way this makes sense is if the court is saying everyone in the world is suffering from the loss of some newly created legal right to come to this country.”
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling in Hawaii is even more unhinged, in Horowitz’s view. According to Judge Watson, the executive order “was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”
But the text of the ban did not refer to any particular religion and instead was a temporary restriction on all immigration for certain terror-linked countries.
However, both Watson and U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland reached outside the evidence of the dispute itself and used campaign statements from President Trump and his advisers to say the executive order was an attempt at the “Muslim ban” promised during the campaign and, therefore, could not be allowed.
Yet as even fierce Donald Trump opponent David Frum observed, the attempt to stop the presidents travel ban radically rewrites American immigration law.
“By barring foreign Muslims, the opinion argues, the Trump administration has signaled disfavor of domestic Muslims as well, thereby violating their First Amendment rights to religious equality,” Frum writes of Watson’s decision.
“Not only that! Watson’s opinion further contends that this argument is so convincing that it is ‘highly likely’ to prevail on the ultimate merits – and for that reason, that he is justified in issuing immediately a temporary restraining order against Trump’s ban. This double argument is bold, to put it mildly.
“What it does, in effect, is globalize the First Amendment, and possibly other amendments too, provided only that a fellow adherent of that religion live inside the United States.”
As Horowitz notes, Watson is essentially declaring the president and even Congress are simply not allowed to impose any restrictions on immigration because of a newly discovered “global freedom of religion.”
“The claim being made by Judge Watson is breathtaking,” he said. “Essentially, he is saying that domestic Muslims are being harmed because President Trump is imposing a temporary travel ban on a predominantly Muslim country, even when the ban itself does not identify Muslims specifically.
“What’s more, liberal states are claiming ‘injury’ because of the travel ban. As I’ve written before, it’s equivalent to a state suing the president because it doesn’t like his foreign policy or if a state felt that the military deployments are hurting and disrupting the lives of residents of their states.”
Horowitz argues the court rulings constitute an existential challenge not just to the authority of President Trump and Congress, but to the country itself.
“This is it,” said Horwitz. “If conservatives do not push back on this, the courts will essentially mandate unlimited immigration from the entire world. It means that the most fundamental areas of public policy and the existence of American sovereignty will have been essentially given away to judges.”
Horowitz identified a number of specific actions Congress should take to reclaim authority over immigration from the courts.
They include passing a concurrent resolution disapproving the court’s decision and affirming the power of Congress and the executive over immigration, using a defunding rider to reintroduce the president’s immigration order in a budget bill, drawing up articles of impeachment against the judges, eliminating the ability of lower courts to issue injunctions or restraining orders outside their jurisdictions, and breaking up the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Finally, and most importantly, Horowitz says Congress must strip the courts of any power to adjudicate any case forcing the entry of a foreign national into the country against the will of the other branches.
“We shouldn’t have to do any of these things, but the situation has gone too far,” said Horowitiz. “We are now essentially being governed by unelected, radically left-wing judges unmoored by statute or precedent who are simply dictating law to the rest of the country based on their ideology. The Constitution works as a system of checks and balances. It is time for the legislature and the president to check these judicial supremacists.
“Otherwise, we won’t just lose our constitutional system. We lose the country itself.”