May 25, 2017

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to reinstate Trump's revised travel ban.

Adam Liptak reports in the NYT.
The case is now likely to go to the Supreme Court.

123 comments:

rhhardin said...

The court is committing suicide.

David said...

Paywall. Was there any dissent?

Mike Sylwester said...

I always have favored -- and still favor -- a grand bargain on the immigration issue. The bargain would be mass amnesty for the illegal aliens here now in exchange for real enforcement of immigration laws from now on.

However, our country's Scientific Progressives -- such as the so-called "judges" in this case -- will prevent any and all enforcement measures.

Those Scientific Progressives who are not judges will help illegal aliens evade and hide from enforcement.

Illegal aliens are future voters for Democratic candidates in future elections, and therefore all must be allowed to stay forever and become citizens.

Really, a grand bargain on this issue is impossible. In the 2016 election I was a one-issue candidate on the immigration issue, and so I voted for Trump, and so I will vote for him again in 2020, no matter what.

I Callahan said...

Good. This is where we get to find out if American sovereignty means something, or are we just watching the death of the country.

I for one, would like to know as soon as possible.

Dave from Minnesota said...

I can't believe this open borders push came out of no where in the past few years. We've all seen the video of Bill Clinton passionately talking about securing the borders and rounding up illegals. In 2008 Obama said something similar (although he was lying, but at least he was paying lip service to the cause).

Now the entire Democrat party is saying we need to have open borders. Is there any nation in the world that does that?

Michael K said...

It's a good thing Gorsuch is there.

National suicide may be held off a while longer.

Drago said...

Was there any doubt after 8 years of obambi appointments (with 3 of those after Reid triggered the "nuclear option")?

All of these and others EO's will have to find their way to the SC as the Left continues to redefine the law to mean whatever they want it to mean with whatever basis is required today regardless of what might have been their position yesterday.

The lefties on the court have already given the game away in any event: the exact same EO's would be "legal" according to the left if issued by lefties.

A nation of men, not of laws.

Obviously.

Michael K said...

"Is there any nation in the world that does that?"

Britain and, in spite of it, Labour still lost.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The bargain would be mass amnesty for the illegal aliens here now in exchange for real enforcement of immigration laws from now on."

-- Didn't Republicans try that under Reagan?

Drago said...

Dave from Minnesota: "I can't believe this open borders push came out of no where in the past few years"

It was always there from 1965 on. The lefties simply weren't so open about it until now when the jig is completely "up".

The dems understood even back then that to achieve permanent political power in the US they were going to have to import a brand new electorate much more in tune with socialism and marxism. This would be in addition to the lefts "long march thru the institutions" (which is fairly complete now) and resulting in wide-scale indoctrination of the "yutes".

Trump is a welcome speedbump on our road to a Venezuela-style "paradise".

Mike Sylwester said...

Our Intelligence Community is disgracing itself, and our court system is disgracing itself.

Because Donald Trump is President, all interference and resistance is permitted.

This is being done by people who pretend to be full of "dedication and integrity", to be our society's smartest and wisest members. We all are supposed to submit ourselves stupidly to their sophistry.

I call them Scientific Progressives.

DougWeber said...

opinion has dissents. Opinion at http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/171351.P.pdf

Dave from Minnesota said...

Its goofy to see mayors of almost every major US city say we need to have open borders and let anyone who wants to walk in.

Then they bitch about how their schools are underfunded and 85 languages are being spoken there.

eric said...

But let's not forget that we need to provide all the people here with free healthcare.

Do they not realize the talking points with the next terror attack? Idiots.

Fernandinande said...

"saying it discriminated on the basis of religion."

That's not unconstitutional.

And I'd bet the order doesn't mention islam or any other religion, which is why the NYT doesn't provide a link to it.

Drago said...

DougWeber: "opinion has dissents."

Indeed.


"While the legitimate justifications for the Order are thoroughly established, its
supposed ills are nowhere present on its face.
Far from containing the sort of religious
advocacy or disparagement that can violate the Establishment Clause, the Order contains
no reference to religion whatsoever. Nor is there any trace of discriminatory animus. In
short, under Mandel and its progeny, Executive Order 13,780 comfortably survives our
review.3
C
The majority’s new rule, which considers statements made by candidate Trump
during the presidential campaign to conclude that the Executive Order does not mean
what it says, is fraught with danger and impracticability. Apart from violating all
established rules for construing unambiguous texts — whether statutes, regulations,
executive orders, or, indeed, contracts — reliance on campaign statements to impose a
new meaning on an unambiguous Executive Order is completely strange to judicial
analysis."


But dude, we need the new, made-up out of whole cloth, arbitrary, completely unworkable, non-sensical new rules to "RESIST" Trump!

Kevin said...

First Comey finds no ill-intent in the Clinton server crimes. The several courts find ill-intent in an otherwise admittedly-lawful Executive Order.

I guess the law truly is whatever those in charge need it to be...

Gahrie said...

I always have favored -- and still favor -- a grand bargain on the immigration issue. The bargain would be mass amnesty for the illegal aliens here now in exchange for real enforcement of immigration laws from now on.

We made that before, under Reagan. There was even supposed to be a wall. That got us the status quo.

Browndog said...

When one branch, the weakest branch, of government holds veto power over the other two, it is assured this power will be abused.

Inga said...

It's a good thing Gorsuch is there."

Don't forget John Roberts is still a Supreme Court Justice. How did he vote on the ACA issue? Were you surprised? Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Browndog said...

If Executive actions can be barred due to a perceived, hypothetical future harm to unknown persons, then the office of the President is officially neutered.

The Judiciary had better get busy formulating their immigration policy so they can inform Congress what laws to write.

Richard said...

The court has become the ultimate thought police. We don’t care what the EO says. We know what you are really thinking you evil monster.

Fernandinande said...

DougWeber said...
Opinion at http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/171351.P.pdf


Thanks for providing more information than the fNYT, namely the order # so I could find it here.

It doesn't mention any given religion but mentions "religion" as below:

"In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation."

and

"...to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."

So apparently the gov't lawyers are claiming that you can't discriminate in favor of a "minority religion" for non-citizens in a different country, but you CAN discriminate in favor of a "minority race" (or even a "majority sex") for citizens in this country.

Goofballs.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Ride Sally Ride!

Is it likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court now that 2 circuits have ruled against the ban? If The Supreme Court may not want to take the case. Let give Trump Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas (although I wouldn't count on Thomas, and Gorsuch is a dark horse). Trump needs either Kennedy or Roberts to get the case into the Supreme Court but needs both to win. They know that and if they know Trump doesn't have the win ... I think they leave it in the circuits.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

And isn't the case now moot, since the travel ban was only temporary?

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Now the entire Democrat party is saying we need to have open borders."

It's occurred to me that this isn't just -or primarily - about the joys of multiculturalism or even new Dem votes. South American gang members and budding jihadis don't care all that much about voting.

It's about expansion of the state. I watched clips of law enforcement officers in the UK moan about how overstretched they are. They don't have the manpower and resources to track all these people.

So, we need to give them more money and more resources! Let's create another department! Let's extend state surveillance and control!

Peter said...

"I always have favored -- and still favor -- a grand bargain on the immigration issue. he bargain would be mass amnesty for the illegal aliens here now in exchange for real enforcement of immigration laws from now on."


This negotiating strategy is right up there with "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." It's the reason why "Land for Peace" didn't work in the Middle East. It's the reason lenders ask for collateral. And (of course) the reason why the 1986 amnesty deal not only failed, but made the problem worse.

It fails because giving up something permanently and irrevocably today in return for an all-too-revocable promise that you'll get something tomorrow is a formula that practically insures you'll get taken.

To actually do something about illegal immigration you'd have to make it deeply unattractive to do it. Use e-verify to force those who are not eligable to work here onto the black market, and then create serious penalties for those who employ them. Get serious about denying welfare benefits to those ineligable to receive them and, create serious penalties for those who manage to collect them anyway.

Or you could build an inevitably porous border wall, with substantial cash and prizes for those who succeed in crossing it. Or (if you truly wish to be suckered) give away amnesty today in return for, umm, "promises."

Because promises (plus three magic beans) may get you a giant beanstalk. Yet somehow they seldom do, do they?

exiledonmainstreet said...

They are quite deliberately creating a problem so the government can then come in and "solve" it. Except the government never solves problems; if they did, their reason for existing would go away (see: "War on Poverty"). The problems keep growing and so does the bureaucracy.

Qwinn said...

Every judge who participated in this attempted coup needs to be impeached, then charged with treason.

I am absolutely, completely serious. They are deliberately aiding and abetting enemies with whom this country is at war. They are actively enabling invasion.

David Begley said...

Majority opinion relies on campaign statements by Trump. Dissents object.

Comanche Voter said...

The opening paragrraph of the majority opinion says that, in context, Trump's executive order "drips with animus and contempt . . and is discriminatory". As for dripping with animus and contempt, the court seems to be setting some new records. They don't like Trump, and they want their cocktail party buddies to know that.

Now I am sincerely puzzled (having spent my legal career blissfully innocent of dealing with immigration and extraterritorial issues). The 4th Circuit apparently says that First Amendment protections apply to non citizen who were born in and raised outside of the United States--but are seeking to come to the United States. I thought that modern sovereign states have--or at least had until the various social justice warriors got started on their crusade (or in this case jihad) to control who entered their country.

The 4th Circuit speaks of "context"and the Trump campaign. It's pretty clear that the 4th Circuit doesn't give a tinker's toot for the wishes of those who voted for Trump.

buwaya said...

"I guess the law truly is whatever those in charge need it to be..."

That's always been the case. When the law is dealing with relatively trivial matters, that don't affect the interests of the entire ruling class, then the legal playpen can host fair games. When it has to deal with enormously significant matters the law is simply a ritual, or ceremonial rationalization, to bless decisions already made by TPTB. These men are more important than the law. That's why you are a banana republic.

An Inga above is right, I also suspect someone on the "right" wing of the court can be made to invent a reason. You legal aficionados will have something to anticipate there, as I think it will be an extremely clever and creative work.

You really don't have a rule of law, when it comes down to it. I suspect its collapse was inevitable, given the scale of the interests this huge and wealthy country has built up. A small country has an easier time staying honest.

I still may be pleasantly surprised, but that seems a low-probability outcome.

Basil said...

Three questions -

1)So, any Muslim who wants to can now come into the United States and the executive branch of our government is enjoined from stopping them???

Why didn't the Nazis and Imperial Japan think of this????

2) Any group who wants to declare war on the United States now must first designate itself as a religion, thereby doing away with the necessity of an invasion?

Again, why didn't the Nazis and Imperial Japan think of this????


3) Where to I go to get the $2,500.00 annual savings on my health insurance that President (and candidate) Obama promised me?

Campaign promises grant standing and the basis for a Constitutional cause of action.

Browndog said...

It's good to know appointed judges can strike any and all laws passed by Congress based on campaign rhetoric by said members.

I don't see how Trump can even sign a budget into law based on this standard.

buwaya said...

"I always have favored -- and still favor -- a grand bargain on the immigration issue. he bargain would be mass amnesty for the illegal aliens here now in exchange for real enforcement of immigration laws from now on."

Besides all the other reasons cited above, there are so many illegal aliens in the US that even an agreement that is honored would still massively skew US politics for generations. And almost certainly in such a way that the grand bargain will be done away with very quickly in any case.

On things like this only a fool depends on the law.

David Begley said...

Comanche Voter:

I was struck by the same thing. Usually judges are measured and judicious. But these are not normal times.

buwaya said...

"Campaign promises grant standing and the basis for a Constitutional cause of action.'

They certainly don't. Without real laws, this will not be considered a precedent if it isn't convenient in some later controversy.

Rick said...

Mike Sylwester said...
I always have favored -- and still favor -- a grand bargain on the immigration issue. The bargain would be mass amnesty for the illegal aliens here now in exchange for real enforcement of immigration laws from now on.

However, our country's Scientific Progressives -- such as the so-called "judges" in this case -- will prevent any and all enforcement measures.

Really, a grand bargain on this issue is impossible.


You correctly identify the problem but I'd quibble to say the grand bargain you mention has been in effect since 1986. It just doesn't have the effect people want it to have.

Kevin said...

A small country has an easier time staying honest.

At this rate we'll break into several small countries soon enough. California, for one, is going to have a great shock when there is no longer a federal government to provide a financial backstop.

David Begley said...

Drago: If only Scalia was still alive. He would savage that type of thinking.

Michael K said...

This is the result of Obama and Reid packing the Appeals Courts with leftist judges. That was the reason for the end of the filibuster.

iowan2 said...

Michael K has it best. The vast majority of cases never make it to SCOTUS. The appeals court makes lots of law. This is just the latest example.

readering said...

My first thought is that this will be overturned by the 5 Republicans on the High Court. (Not that they were packed in or anything.) But maybe Kennedy can be reached. He was the author of Romer, which struck down an anti-gay state constitutional provision based on the animus of the drafters. He might accept that Trump's proclaimed anti-Islam animus justifies striking down this EO.

But his lawyers will then point to his love-fest in Saudi Arabia and argue that he has no such animus (at least not when he's being treated like a Sheikh).

n.n said...

More legal commentary from the twilight fringe. There is no ban, only increased scrutiny.

More important, is that the refugee crises have were forced by Obama's elective wars and regime changes, a club to disenfranchise and beat natives, compensation for Planned Parenthood/selective-child religious/moral policies in progressive liberal societies, and avoidance of emigration reform in second and third-world nations.

George Ferko said...

J. Harvie Wilkinson was not part of the en banc court. Since he is not a senior judge, did he recuse himself or does the Fourth Circuit do en banc lite like the Ninth Circuit?

n.n said...

Mike Sylwester:

amnesty for the illegal aliens here now

That could work. The disruption forced by excessive immigration and the corruption caused by illegal immigration has already largely been absorbed.

Under normal conditions, it is self-evident that the rate of immigration should not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before Planned Parenthood/elective abortion, which is a progressive condition in liberal societies.

in exchange for real enforcement of immigration laws

And an end to elective wars that have been first-order forcings of catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises).

Mark O said...

A candidate runs on the platform that there should be a pause in immigration based on terror threats. He is roundly derided. He wins. The Fourth Circuit precludes this ban, and if not overturned, any ban that affects any country that spawns Islamic terror, because they all have Muslims.

Is this any way to run foreign policy?

Birches said...

Then they bitch about how their schools are underfunded and 85 languages are being spoken there.

This isn't true. They all send their kids to private schools.

n.n said...

Matthew Sablan:

Didn't Republicans try that under Reagan?

Yes. Unfortunately, overlapping and convergent domestic and foreign interests. Americans will have to prevail in the government, in the courts, in the education system, and in the culture, if they hope to control their own destiny.

readering said...

Wilkinson's son-in-law argued for the government. So he recused himself.

Bay Area Guy said...

Is there any sane person in America that thinks it's a good thing to import unskilled, Middle East Muslims who don't assimilate into our culture?

Do people not read the news in England and France?

rcocean said...

I read the first paragraph of the opinion - it was gibberish. But does it matter? Of course not.

Will it be upheld? Probably. The four liberals vote as a bloc and vote their political beliefs. So we can count on Kagan, Sotomeyer, Ginsburg, and Breyer voting to uphold before they even hear the case.

All they'll need is Kennedy or the new guy. It doesn't look good.

rcocean said...

"The court is committing suicide."

No, its committing homicide on the USA.

Wait, that's too strong. More like assisted suicide.

hombre said...

Trump's order "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination" claims the Court in an opinion divided along party lines - a claim that when viewed against the verbiage of the order is patently indefensible.

So, it now appears that in addition to being unethical, seditious partisans, Democrat judges are also proving to be drama queens.

n.n said...

Increased scrutiny affects people by national and geographic origin, when it is justified to discern character from principled alignment (i.e. judge people by the "content of their character"), but this court would have us judge people by the "color of their skin", which makes sense under Democrats' [class] diversity policy (i.e. Pro-Choice), but is a progressive step for people who have rejected that standard of judgment and discrimination.

hombre said...

The choice of the nations affected by Trump's order was reportedly based in part on a finding by Obama's DHS that they didnt adequately screen their emigrants and departing travelers for terrorists.

Given that, the risks, and the violence done to legal precedent, the rule of law and separation of powers by these unprincipled Democrat judicial usurpers, what kind of insanity moves anyone to support their actions? Trump derangement syndrome?

Inga? Readering? Anyone?

Inga said...

This says it so well.

"Donald Trump is his own worst enemy.

At least, that’s the biggest takeaway from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding an injunction against the most recent version of Trump’s Muslim ban. Ten of the thirteen judges who heard International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump ruled against Trump’s policy, although there was some disagreement as to why among the judges in the majority.

As Chief Judge Roger Gregory explains in the court’s primary opinion, the court may have reached a different outcome had Trump and his aides simply kept their big mouths shut. As was the case in several other decisions halting the Muslim ban, Trump lost in large part because he spent months traveling around the country bragging about his plan to violate the Constitution."

Unknown said...

The reason why Western democracies have open borders of varying restrictions is because the "natives" are not breeding enough. If the shortfall in native births is not made-up through inward migration then you can say goodbye to your pensions, social security, medicaid and so on because there won't be enough people working to pay enough taxes to support an aging population and keep economic growth stable.

Why can't the US just import white" folks from those nice European countries? Because, they too are in the same position and are doing all they can to keep talented people but also allowing more immigration then they have in the past.

Angela Merkel was astute to allow the million or so Syrian refugees to stay in Germany because it is facing a demographic time-bomb unless it finds new and young workers.

Unfortunately for Trumpski's, you are not going to learn the reality of the world by watching Fox News 24/7.

n.n said...

Obama's DHS that they didnt adequately screen their emigrants and departing travelers for terrorists

Thus the perceived "ban". Increased scrutiny does not significantly delay immigration from nations capable of vouching for their citizens, and thereby capable of accepting joint responsibility in preventing terrorism.

Browndog said...

Opening line:

GREGORY, Chief Judge 1: The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains "a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace." And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs' right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. /snip

Nice, huh?

Citing dicta from a Civil War era case is a great way to start. That is, if you subscribe to the liberal jurisprudence that the actual Constitutional itself is a Living Document, subject to change.

Thoughts and comments from one judge, at any point in time?

Why, those are etched in stone for all eternity.

readering said...

Sorry, someone addressing me? I was distracted admiring photos of those lovebirds Barack and
and Angela in Berlin.

. . . . And then by the hilarious Kimmel viral video of the Pope and the President posing side by side.

n.n said...

GREGORY, Chief Judge 1: The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains "a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace." And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs' right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.

That is an interpretation pushed through the collusion of the DNC, leftists, journolists, and [class] diversity judges.

Still nothing about the avoidance of emigration reform and that the refugee crises were forced by Obama's elective wars and destabilization of nations from Africa to the Middle East to Eastern Europe.

Michael K said...

the court may have reached a different outcome had Trump and his aides simply kept their big mouths shut.

Leftist "law" in a nutshell.

Evidence? Who needs that.

Those old days when people said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

They are long gone.

DanTheMan said...

The bottom line:
If President Hillary Clinton had signed the exact same order, it would be upheld.
But if President Trump signs that exact same order, it's unconstitutional.

Somebody try and defend that. Please.

Inga said...

The Muslim Ban is UnConstitutional.

That's it in a nutshell.

Gahrie said...

The Muslim Ban is UnConstitutional.

Trump's order is neither a ban, nor unconstitutional.

buwaya said...

"Angela Merkel was astute to allow the million or so Syrian refugees to stay in Germany because it is facing a demographic time-bomb unless it finds new and young workers. "

If Germany needs people, importing an unselected mass of refugees from a highly-incompatible society is very nearly the worst way to go about it.

She could very easily have set up a recruitment scheme in countries with a proven record of providing trouble-free, high productivity immigrants with a high degree of religious-social compatibility (like the Philippines say). A million Filipinos(or Chinese, or Hindus or for goodness sake, even Mexicans), well-screened for health, mental ability and educational attainment, are very easy to recruit. They could also easily arrange for gender balance, etc.

Such a population, recruited through an organized process, would be nearly trouble free and immediately productive, and long term far cheaper than the lot they are now stuck with.

And I've been saying this for years. Nobody has an answer to it.

n.n said...

It's not a ban. It's not a Muslim ban. It's not even a significant delay in nations with competent governance. It doesn't affect the majority of Muslims globally. It does affect Jews, Christians, Atheists, etc.

Baby trial. GREGORY, Chief Judge, presiding.

buwaya said...

If Germany wanted workers, there are even international personnel agencies that, for instance, provide the best quality of gastarbeiter to half the Middle East and critical industries the world over.

They could have just had a talk with the outfits that provide most of Saudi Arabia's guest workers.

A place to start -
https://www.workabroad.ph/job-hiring/jobs-by-agency/

n.n said...

A demographic time bomb normalized/promoted by Planned Parenthood. Perhaps it's too late to change the moral progression.

Merkel is participating in the coverup of collateral damage (e.g. refugee crises) from Obama's elective wars. Perhaps their mutual empathy has something to do with the violent coup in Ukraine that forced a refugee crisis mitigated through Russian intervention (a la Syria).

David said...

This is a bizarre case. It's going to be one of the most important appeals we have seen in a long time. Given the state of the reporting on the case, the public is going to have a hard time discerning just how crucial a matter this is.

Unknown said...

I assume Inga is fully on board with the Supreme Court's stripping of Mormons and only Mormons of the right to vote in the 1800's. 9-0 baby. I further assume that Inga would support all the same laws the United States used to target Mormons being brought back today. You know, like dissolving their church and seizing their property and forbidding Mormons from being governmental employees or running for office. Forcing Mormons wives to testify against their husbands.

Guess what: Mormon women had the right to vote long before other women in the US. And the Court and the US Congress took it away. You are a-ok with all of that of course, Inga.

The Mormons would have been thrilled if all they had was a 3-month travel ban. Instead, they got the US Army sent to massacre them. That's not a problem for Inga and other "How DARE you ban Islamists! That's unconstitutional! Rounding up thousands of Mormons because they are Mormon we are totally ok with, though!"

--Vance

David Begley said...

If it was a Muslim ban why didn't we include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? And Indonesia?

Answer: We can vet there and they have functioning governments.

Browndog said...

Worse yet, Trump is still working off an "acting" Solicitor General. Some hold-over kid from Obama's DOJ, who's father is a 4th Circuit judge. Hell, he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, history and background scarce.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin said...

The Muslim Ban is UnConstitutional.

Top Muslim Countries by Population:

1. Indonesia
2. India
3. Pakistan
4. Bangladesh
5. Nigeria

Those countries contain half the world's Muslims and none are on the list. Muslim ban? Pfffftt!

AJ Lynch said...

Trump should call the Dem & court's bluff by revoking DACA - the so-called Dreamer exec order. There is no law that says he can't reverse a prior president's exec order.

Bob Loblaw said...

I always have favored -- and still favor -- a grand bargain on the immigration issue. The bargain would be mass amnesty for the illegal aliens here now in exchange for real enforcement of immigration laws from now on.

We've had the same grand bargain three times now. The problem is as soon as you implement an amnesty people pour over the border thinking you'll be forced to do it again in a decade or two. The only way we could possibly deal with illegal immigration is to deport everyone we can identify as being here illegally, levy draconian penalties on employers who hire illegals, and get rid of birthright citizenship. Everything else is just a show for the rubes.

Sebastian said...

It really is a critical case. If the courts can override the judgment of the president pertaining to immigration, by fabricating unprecedented principles in an area reserved by the Constitution to the judgment of Congress and the Executive, utterly distorting the meaning and import of the order at issue, after an election that turned in part on this very initiative, then either the courts really are our overlords or we must, to coin a phrase, Resist.

Michael K said...

Trump is still working off an "acting" Solicitor General. Some hold-over kid from Obama's DOJ, who's father is a 4th Circuit judge.

The Democrats are stonewalling 500 second level appointees. The same thing they did to Bush but Bush got suckered into leaving the US Attorneys, which was a big mistake.

I hope when Trump gets home he makes a big deal on this and pressures McConnell to waive confirmation.

n.n said...

fabricating unprecedented principles

Perhaps from a penumbra, the twilight fringe.

urbane legend said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
They are quite deliberately creating a problem so the government can then come in and "solve" it. Except the government never solves problems; if they did, their reason for existing would go away (see: "War on Poverty"). The problems keep growing and so does the bureaucracy.

And I got up this morning with such high hopes.

readering said...

Arguing the appeals to the Fourth and Ninth Circuit for the Government was a Trump appointee as Deputy Solicitor General who came from a Wall Street law firm.

Browndog said...

I hope when Trump gets home he makes a big deal on this and pressures McConnell to waive confirmation.

Therein lies the problem.

It was only last week that Trump's ambassador to China was confirmed; overwhelmingly.

McConnell lamented how democrat obstruction was to blame. Odd, in that McConnell didn't schedule a vote until last week.

narciso said...

it's striking how the missive from Manchester, never seemed to reach them:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/24/woman-arrested-in-manchester-in-connection-with-suicide-bombing/

Birkel said...

RE: Confirmation

The GOP should recess and let Trump appoint his people.

MaxedOutMama said...

Unknown:
"Angela Merkel was astute to allow the million or so Syrian refugees to stay in Germany because it is facing a demographic time-bomb unless it finds new and young workers. "

But that policy has proven to be a gigantic failure. The employability of those imported in this manner has been negligible. Absolutely minimal numbers of refugees in the recent wave (such as in the hundreds) have been successfully shunted through language and job training programs to employment. There are numerous problems. One is that in some programs offered, attendance is strikingly poor. Especially among the Syrians, for some reason. Another is that the prior educational level of many of these people is abysmal. Some are completely illiterate.

And the reality is that wages are pretty low in Germany, and once they start working in an apprenticeship, even if they survive, the first few years they are going to be very poor.

The estimate of 30-40,000 refugees involved in drug trafficking is probably correct. The belief is that there there are over a 1,000 young males involved in prostitution. Both of these stats dwarf the number of refugees who have been employed.

The conclusion of the companies who initially supported Merkel's step on the grounds that it would solve their staffing problems has changed - the management of those companies now believes that it will do nothing to solve their problem.

Here is a recent (March) article on the problem:
https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article162603389/Fluechtlinge-sind-nicht-die-neuen-Fachkraefte.html

Here is a link to the google translate version:
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fdebatte%2Fkommentare%2Farticle162603389%2FFluechtlinge-sind-nicht-die-neuen-Fachkraefte.html&edit-text=

What you cite is now conceded to be fantasy in Germany, and instead, the companies are now quietly agitating behind the scenes for a Canadian-style immigration system:
"It is not possible to close the gap in the asylum policy, but only through a genuine immigration policy - with a point system that brings those people to Germany who are needed on the labor market."

The actual result of Merkel's humanitarian step is now conceded to be quite dire. The schools are failing under the burden. Many native German children are being removed from the system, which worsens the problem. Researchers expect many of the refugee who will be employed to be dependent on the public welfare system for their entire lives - and the debate has shifted as to how to deal with the resulting costs.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

SCOTUS, you say?

OH boy. Now we can learn how much a bunch of Trump lackeys his newest gang of five turn out to be.

MaxedOutMama said...

The social tensions in Germany are quite acute. The school problem is so serious that recently it was suggested that busing programs be started to try to equalize the numbers of non-German-speaking children from different countries across the classes - the children are not even speaking German in school in many city classes, because they have more of their native language cohorts to interact with than German speaking children.

However the busing solution will probably not work, because in some cities there are more non-German speaking children in total than German-speaking children. It is not just that the newcomers are failing - the children who are born in the country are now not getting a decent education. Anyone who can afford it now sends their children to private schools. This is producing a serious lack of social mobility - poorer native Germans living in the city areas are now seeing their children receive a third or fourth rate education.

There was another recent proposal to require three years residence in a picked rural location of refugees, in order to try to prevent the development of the foreign enclaves. But everybody knows this won't work, and if it is tried, it will infuriate the native Germans. The crime rates are escalating rapidly, and the Germans who live in the rural areas don't want to deal with the big-city problems, and some of them moved there to escape the urban problem.

In the recent regional elections, a zero-tolerance policy for crimes was suggested - but they don't have prison space to even lock up these people. If a German policeman arrests a refugee or refugee applicant for stealing in a shop or on the street, the arrestee will be out on the street again in hours. Not days, but hours. The court system is overloaded - trials for serious crimes may take several years to be held, and in all that time, the accused is free on the street. Therefore police do not even bother to arrest most refugees or refugee applicants for any but violent crimes. Rape, murder, serious bodily injury. A rapist will be out in 2-3 years. Attempted murder, maybe 4 years. Recently, a person of Turkish origin who shot his wife in both knees outside the local mosque after Friday prayers, due to her leaving him with the children and claiming support, escaped without a jail penalty, although he was convicted of the offense.

I read the German newspapers at least three times a week. It's fascinating. I also read the comment sections in several. They are a portrait of a dissolving society.

buwaya said...

Re Muslims in Germany -

They would have done far better by importing Mexicans or Central Americans.
Or even recruiting illegal immigrants in the US.
That could have solved two problems at once.
The US is lucky even in its illegal immigrants.

And the German policy of 2015 was insane.

hombre said...

Unknown 4:54: "Unfortunately for Trumpski's, you are not going to learn the reality of the world by watching Fox News 24/7."

What reality is that, Rumpswab? That countries are defined by dirt, not by culture? That the United States of Mexico or Syria or for that matter, Islam, will provide the same opportunities for my grandchildren as the United States of America as we knew it provided for the whiny victim classes, my parents and me?

Take a look at Mexico, Syria and the Islamic nations and then peddle your self-righteous codswallop about reality to the other ignoramuses in the Soros/DNC circle jerk.

Fen said...

MaxedOutMama, thank you for the analysis. I'm surprised at how closely it resembles problems we have in the US with illegal immigrants, refugees and section 8 housing.

You mentioned you read most the comments in the German papers. Whem you have time, I'm curious how they are responding, and if the section feels heavily moderated?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

That countries are defined by dirt, not by culture? That the United States of Mexico or Syria or for that matter, Islam, will provide the same opportunities for my grandchildren as the United States of America as we knew it provided for the whiny victim classes, my parents and me?

Following in a long tradition of rejecting: first evolution, then geophysics and now macroeconomics - "homey the hombre" now leads his party's charge in its next round of denialism by rejecting - yes, you guessed it - GEOGRAPHY!

"These maps and the lines on them and the names are liberal progressive fictions designed by George Soros and the globalists to run you down!!!"

Amazing how even the most educated fascist cumstain is still about as ignorant and paranoid a mouth-breather as the rest of the right-wing. This is a tribe defined by hatred of knowledge.

n.n said...

The US is lucky even in its illegal immigrants.

Yes, principled alignment. That's one less native source of conflict, and it moderates but does not stop creation of "minority" groups (e.g. [class] diversity) and forcing prejudice for political progress.

Fen said...

Ace just spoke with a counter-terrorism expert who says they are spread so thin that HIGH LEVEL threats are only survieled 24 hours per week.

Fen said...

Oh cute. "Fascist cumstain" from Toothless. Can we add a Civility Bullshit tag to Althouse's plea that we play by the rules? Because it looks like she didn't mean it.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Fen, ignore him and he'll go away. It's not much fun for him to rant to himself.

Qwinn said...

So, according to the thought-vacuum that is Ritmo, if the Supreme Court decides that the travel ban, which leftists everywhere have acknowledged would be legit if a leftist enacted it (and in fact, Obama did), if they decide that what someone on the campaign trail says is irrelevant (which is what they *had* to do to make Obamacare constitutional - remember "it's not a tax except in court"?), if they slap down the utterly insane and brazen usurpation of executive power by the courts, then, CLEARLY, indisputably, that makes SCOTUS nothing but "Trump lackeys". Honest disagreement with this load of fucking excrement isn't even possible in Ritmo's telling, it can only be pure partisanship if you don't buy this absurd monstrosity of ultra-hypocritical partisan bullshit that the Left is attempting here, with consequences that could literally tear this country apart.

Seriously, Ritmo, burn in hell.

Qwinn said...

And as I noted in another thread, Ann seems to be unwilling to moderate a leftist, no matter how repulsive and disgusting and extreme they are, no matter how brazenly they violate her rules, unless she can nail a conservative as well, so "cruel neutrality". She can't bring herself to even enforce her own rules if it might possibly support the notion that she sides with conservatives, cause then all the leftist namecalling she's endured that *she* is a right winger might seem to have some truth to it, "Cruel neutrality" therefore enables extreme tolerance for only one side's sins. Funny how that works.

Well, I'll take the grenade for the rest of us. Go ahead and ban me so the fucking traitorous goiter on the world's most cancerous anal wart that is Ritmo can finally be fucking banned as well.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Oh cute. Can we add a Civility Bullshit tag to Althouse's plea that we play by the rules? Because it looks like she didn't mean it.

You just hate that when she applies it, she tries to apply it equally. Which means that the guy I quoted, who said:

What reality is that, Rumpswab?

would have also been affected.

But right-wingers have trouble with uniform standards. They think that their purpose in life is to get away with things that they want to sanction others for.

Or maybe they just don't read.

Pretty emotional guy there, fenway.

Inga said...

Lots of angst tonight.

khesanh0802 said...

@maxedoutmamma I, for one, would certainly be interested in occasional updates on what is going on in Germany re immigrants. I was there years ago when Turks were being used as "guest workers". There was no question they were considered the lowest of the low by the Germans I met. I would think the immigrants would fall in the same category or lower. Huge problems and I don't really understand how the Germans let it happen.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

If the only way you can get your majority on the court is by holding up a nomination for a year, then ramming through an ideological cartoon so that the "Scalia seat" remains in reactionary hands, then you are indeed a Trump lackey. You're a lackey of the politicians who made that come to be, anyway.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Seriously, Ritmo, burn in hell.

5/25/17, 9:56 PM
Blogger Qwinn said...
And as I noted in another thread, Ann seems to be unwilling to moderate a leftist, no matter how repulsive and disgusting and extreme they are, no matter how brazenly they violate her rules..


Literally. The very next breath. Nice consistency!

Well, for mouth breathers I guess you never know what's going to come out of each new breath.

And then she threw in this - as a right-wing, er, "palate" cleanser:

...fucking traitorous goiter on the world's most cancerous anal wart...

My my. Thanks for that window into the things that preoccupy your own mind.

And I haven't been getting allies killed and leaking forensics from the Manchester bombing, all so that I can brag about it to a hostile foreign power that interferes in our elections. But seeing as how you apparently do (since all right-wingers here are Trump lackeys) then it sounds like you're the one who merits the charge of treason.

Why not just move to Russia already? Clearly that's where you'd rather be. And under that regime.

Inga said...

Here's one from Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/donald-trump-is-a-menace-to-the-world-opinion-a-1148471.html

"It's Time to Get Rid of Donald Trump
Donald Trump has transformed the United States into a laughing stock and he is a danger to the world. He must be removed from the White House before things get even worse.

Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States. He does not possess the requisite intellect and does not understand the significance of the office he holds nor the tasks associated with it. He doesn't read. He doesn't bother to peruse important files and intelligence reports and knows little about the issues that he has identified as his priorities. His decisions are capricious and they are delivered in the form of tyrannical decrees.

He is a man free of morals. As has been demonstrated hundreds of times, he is a liar, a racist and a cheat. I feel ashamed to use these words, as sharp and loud as they are. But if they apply to anyone, they apply to Trump. And one of the media's tasks is to continue telling things as they are: Trump has to be removed from the White House. Quickly. He is a danger to the world.

Trump is a miserable politician. He fired the FBI director simply because he could. James Comey had gotten under his skin with his investigation into Trump's confidants. Comey had also refused to swear loyalty and fealty to Trump and to abandon the investigation. He had to go."

buwaya said...

Just a practical option;

We will be off on a long-ish trip to various parts of East Asia next week, so Althouse can ban me for some considerable time with no particular loss. Not that it would be a great loss anyway. So if you like I can fall on the grenade re Ritmo. Any suggestion on the proper form of the incantation much appreciated.

We dont plan to take any actual grenades, we are staying far away from Marawi, Lanao, or anywhere Muslim. Likewise we dont intend to trespass on Chinese claims in the Spratleys. I dont think the next Korean war is starting anytime next month, so that should be fine too.

Inga said...

Another one from Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-white-house-descends-into-chaos-and-scandal-a-1148569.html

"A Vortex of Scandal, Chaos and Absurdity
The White House is becoming more chaotic by the day. Now, a special counsel has been brought in to investigate possible connections between President Donald Trump's team and Russia. But the most important question is now whether Trump is mentally stable enough to be president."



Bad Lieutenant said...


Inga said...
Another one from Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-white-house-descends-into-chaos-and-scandal-a-1148569.html

"A Vortex of Scandal, Chaos and Absurdity
The White House is becoming more chaotic by the day. Now, a special counsel has been brought in to investigate possible connections between President Donald Trump's team and Russia. But the most important question is now whether Trump is mentally stable enough to be president."



5/25/17, 10:25 PM


Earth to Germany: you lost the war, Nazis. Stop telling your betters what to do. Stick to making fine cars, forged steel products and extreme pornography.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Just so you know, Germany is going to be Nazis long after the South is done being Rebs.

n.n said...

It is imperative for leftists to protect Obama's legacy in elective wars, extrajudicial trials, forced immigration reform (a.k.a. refugee crises), and opening abortion fields from Libya to Syria to Ukraine. Merkel seems to empathize with them, if only to protect her investment in the Ukrainian coup. They really hate Russians, if for no other reason than it exposed their adventurism, and they salivate at securing its natural resources (a la South Africa).

hombre said...

Toothless Ritmo 9:30: "Following in a long tradition of rejecting: first evolution, then geophysics and now macroeconomics - "homey the hombre" now leads his party's charge in its next round of denialism by rejecting - yes, you guessed it - GEOGRAPHY!"

"'These maps and the lines on them and the names are liberal progressive fictions designed by George Soros and the globalists to run you down!!!'" (Quoting himself.)

Following in a long tradition of ad hominem posts relying on straw men the Althouse Sock Puppet once again delves into the dusty recesses of his own tiny mind to project his stupidity onto another.

Of course. Of course. Political entities such as countries and their subdivisions are defined by geography, not by men. That's why Assyria, Carthage, Babylonia, Philistia, Ur, why, even Yugoslavia, are still around and thriving. LOL. Thank you for sharing, douchenozzle. We are all the wiser for it.

hombre said...

Oh oh. Strike "douchenozzle" at 1:10. I don't know what got into me to respond to Ritmo's gracious and classy post with such an uncivil term.

Fen said...

Buwaya, happy travels and enjoy your trip. But prefer you not retrieve grenades for Ritmo. I enjoy reading you, and for all his bluster he is just the dweeb behind the curtain of Oz The Gweat And Tewwible. Not worth it.

If he gets out of hand we'll send in Toto again.

Fen said...

"...the socket puppet delves into..."

Oh goody! Althouse Geographic is back on!

"And here we see a Ritmo inch along - Bob pull back the camera it's right under your... ah hell..."

Eeeeeew.

"Well, might as well take this opportunity to point out that, while the Ritmo appears to have a thick carapice, in reality it's spineless and kinda er gooey on the inside. Thanks Bob"

Yah way to go Bob. Clutz.

Robert Cook said...

"Well, I'll take the grenade for the rest of us. Go ahead and ban me so the fucking traitorous goiter on the world's most cancerous anal wart that is Ritmo can finally be fucking banned as well."

Dude! I think you're a tad bit more emotionally involved in this little pastime than is warranted or healthy. Step back, decompress, go outside, enjoy the world around you. This is all just digital noise.

iowan2 said...

The courts are playing with fire. As Insty points out, following the law, is voluntary. In America, we live under an implied social contract, and we all agree to follow the law. The people are dangerously close to understanding, with decisions like this, that the law is what out betters deem it to be. Once the people make the determination that the law is not applied equally, the social contract, evaporates, and the voluntary compliance ceases. There are not enough cops and judges to ride herd on a population that no longer sees the legal system as impartial.

Qwinn said...

Cook, iowan2's answer can serve as my own. What the Left is doing now WILL tear this country apart. It is intentional. Ritmo is cheering it on, and projecting every sin on conservatives and patriots while doing it. It is treason. If it doesn't make you (or anyone) sick to your stomach, it should.

Todd said...

Michael K said...
Trump is still working off an "acting" Solicitor General. Some hold-over kid from Obama's DOJ, who's father is a 4th Circuit judge.

The Democrats are stonewalling 500 second level appointees. The same thing they did to Bush but Bush got suckered into leaving the US Attorneys, which was a big mistake.

5/25/17, 7:25 PM


I got a fix for that! Any department still awaiting a Trump confirmed person in place by mid-year, that department loses all funding. If the Democrats don't think the position needs filling, then we don't really need the department. Easy peasy.

hombre said...

Quinn: "It is treason. If it doesn't make you (or anyone) sick to your stomach, it should."

If not treason, it is clearly sedition and it IS sickening. Trump's "allies" lack the courage to take the initiative, including enforcement of sedition laws, and that is also sickening.

Jupiter said...

"That's it in a nutshell."

Aha! I have been wondering about that new headgear, since you got rid of the Pussy Hat. So, it's a nutshell?

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PB said...

There is no law .

phann son said...

The US is lucky even in its illegal immigrants.

Yes, principled alignment. That's one less native source of conflict, and it moderates but does not stop creation of "minority" groups (e.g. [class] diversity) and forcing prejudice for political progress.
Please click to play,if you wanna join casino online. Thank you

goldenslot
gclub online
gclub casino
Gclub