Tag: Travel Ban

Join Jim and Greg as Jim sizes up Pres. Biden’s latest COVID strategy as “same as the old one only louder.” They also shudder at the weakness the U.S. is projecting around the world, most recently through the painfully pathetic statements of Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin and Sec. of State Antony Blinken. And they hammer Biden for refusing to relax his European travel ban.

Lone Judge Controls US Immigration Policy for Nine Months


In October 2017, Federal District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson, appointed by Obama in 2013, issued a nationwide injunction against President Trump’s travel ban for people from seven countries in which Islamic terrorists are active. These countries’ governments are in such disarray they are not able to provide the US with sufficient records to properly identify and vet immigrants seeking to come to the US.

That’s right. One federal judge in Hawaii at the lowest level of the federal court system, with a mere four years’ experience, issued a ruling that prohibited the entire Executive Branch from enforcing the travel ban.

Supreme Court Ruling Correct on Trump Travel Ban


In Trump v. Hawaii, the 5-4 majority reached the right result in upholding the Trump administration’s use of delegated power under the immigration laws to ban the immigration of aliens from countries deemed threats to the national security. That Congress had granted the President ample power was a conclusion easy to reach, despite the claims of liberals who generally love such broad transfers of power to the administrative state when the subject is environmental protection or market regulation.

But the most important part of the opinion, and its critical implication for the future of the Trump administration (and indeed, all future administrations), was its rejection of the claim that Trump had violated the Constitution because of his personal bias against Muslims. I had raised doubts about this problem in earlier versions of the travel ban, which had applied only to Muslim countries and had granted an exception for Christians. But more professional hands updated the travel ban, and it now reflects no unconstitutional religious or ethnic bias on its face.

Nevertheless, Trump opponents (which, it has to be said, included the lower federal courts in Hawaii and California) claimed that the President’s personal state of mind was a) subject to judicial inquiry; and b) could be deduced from his statements, tweets, and the like from both before and after the 2016 election. But the Court correctly states that if the order is facially legal and can be justified on any legitimate national security basis, the federal judiciary should not block it. “Under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy.”

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombus of Radio America celebrate the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution in two separate cases. They agree with the court’s conclusion that President Trump’s travel ban is within his constitutional and statutory right. They are also glad to see the Court side with free speech in striking down a California law that required crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services. They are also pleasantly surprised that Democratic leaders are condemning Maxine Waters’ calls for the harassment of Trump administration officials.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are cautiously optimistic after the Supreme Court appears to support the constitutionality of President Trump’s proposed travel ban.  They also shake their heads at the sudden outrage over presidential physician Admiral Ronny Jackson, as Democrat Sen. Jon Tester and the media run wild with stories of Jackson’s drunkenness and prescription drug recklessness, yet somehow none of this ever came to light while Jackson served as doctor to President Obama and his family.  And they sigh as the conservative love affair and liberal outrage over Kanye West hits another level after Kanye tweets that he loves Trump, slams Obama, and Kim Kardashian tweets in strong support of Kanye’s right to think for himself.

Welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast for December 5, 2017 – number 152 – it’s the San Francisco Dodges a Bullet edition of the show with your hosts Hartford radio guy Todd Feinburg and nanophysicist Mike Stopa.

Today we have special guest and good friend (really, she’s a friend…we have had a beer together at a restaurant and everything. I think it was twice even) Jessica Vaughan. Jessica is the Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies and about as knowledgeable as anyone in America about immigration issues. (And, did I mention? she’s a friend).

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to the U.S. Supreme Court allowing President Trump’s travel ban on six nations to go into effect while the courts sort out the legal challenges.  Regardless of whether the ban is a good idea, U.S. law clearly gives the president the authority to do this.  They also shudder as the Republican National Committee follows President Trump’s lead and jumps back in to help Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.  And they shake their heads as Michigan Rep. John Conyers says he is “retiring” from Congress and endorses his son in the race to succeed him.

Member Post


In a bizarre twist of fate, that unholy targeting of religious adherents for banishment in entering the US has been upheld in its entirety with 2 dissentions. Looks like the courtcontinues to support the Presidents constitutional duty to control immigration, including preventing people of any class to enter our country. Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Bill discusses Pres. Trump’s big win before the Supreme Court after it upholds most of his travel ban. Bill also weighs in on the latest news regarding Republican efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Then, foreign policy expert Michael Del Rosso joins Bill to discuss the war against ISIS abroad in Mosul and Syria as well as at home in the fight against the spread of radical Islam. Finally, he talks with David French about the legal and political implications of the Supreme Court upholding the travel ban and what comes next for Trump’s immigration plan.

We celebrate the SCOTUS ruling that, to no sane person’s surprise, the suspension of President Trump’s ban on travel from “six predominantly Muslim countries” was an absurd invasion by judicial activists into the blatantly Executive functions of the government. This is, as you have guessed, the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast, episode 128, with our guest Jessica Vaughan from the Center for Immigration Studies.

(Apologies that this episode has some serious unbalance to the audio – we will be improving the technology in the coming weeks. Thanks for your patience).

David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate the Supreme Court decision that upheld a portion of President Trump’s travel ban, overturning lower court rulings. They also applaud the SCOTUS decision in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church against the State of Missouri in a religious liberty case. And they question Pride Month’s “inclusivity” as LGBT members of the Jewish community are ejected from a Chicago pride march for having the Star of David on a rainbow flag.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud British Prime Minister Theresa May for a much tougher statement following the London Bridge terrorism attack, while acknowledging the difficult free speech debate that is sure to follow. They also contemplate terror suspect profiling after one attacker appeared in the documentary “The Jihadis Next Door” and attempted to radicalize children in a local park, yet police let him go after questioning. And they express frustration over President’s Trump’s latest Twitter tirade over his travel ban.

Trump’s New Travel Ban on Firmer Legal Footing


I think Trump’s new immigration order will withstand judicial scrutiny. Because it grants admission to all existing visa holders and permanent resident aliens, it is difficult to see who has standing to challenge this order — notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit’s made-up notion that the State of Washington could represent all aliens in the world who wanted to visit the United States. Aliens outside our territory with no pre-existing connection to the US do not have rights under the Constitution that can be recognized in court.

This time, the order explicitly relies on the findings of the last administration and the agencies that the six nations in question are state sponsors of terrorism or are countries where terrorist activity are matters of high concern. The editing out of special exceptions for Christian minorities undermines criticism that this order arises from anti-religion bias. It will be much harder to show connections between anti-Muslim statements made during the campaign and the motives behind this order, which the courts might not wish to examine any way.

Trump Signs New Travel Ban


President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday temporarily blocking travel to the United States from countries deemed to pose a high terrorism risk. This new order was crafted to correct the legal concerns surrounding his previous action. CNBC outlined the differences:

The new measure… bars travel to the U.S. for 90 days from six predominantly Muslim countries — Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, according to a Department of Homeland Security fact sheet. It excludes Iraq, which was on the original list.

A Further Qualified Defense of the Ninth Circuit Attack on Trump’s Executive Immigration Order


My recent post on Ricochet took the position that the Ninth Circuit was correct when it set aside Trump’s controversial executive orders on legal permanent aliens and refugees and asked the Trump administration to reexamine the result. Most people in dealing with this order claim that it went too far because it did not accept the President’s position that the order was wholly unreviewable, regardless of its content, which was viewed as self-evidently correct by some and wholly outside the bounds of decency by others. Indeed, many of the comments on Ricochet took the former position by arguing that Presidents should follow the lead of Andrew Jackson and tell the Court to enforce its own order. But it is, as other readers noted, a wild overreaction to a particular dispute to throw out a set of institutional arrangements that have by and large served the United States well for over 200 years.

I put these grander objections aside, therefore, to look at two more fine-grained challenges. I start by noting that in making this decision, the Ninth Circuit was right to avoid grappling on a thin record with claims that both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause applied to the particular case. That analysis would have been a major transformation of American law that could quite literally upset established practices on allocating scarce immigration slots on the basis of national origin. It also allowed the Court to side step the very tricky question of the extent to which alien claims generated some positive right to become an immigrant. I regard these claims when stated in their general form to be wholly unsupportable. In general, the power of every nation to protect its own borders means that no outsider has a categorical right to enter this country but must allowed to apply before entry.

With all that said, the actual issues presented in this case were of narrower bore, dealing with standing on the one hand, and the relationship of this order to the President’s statutory authority to make unreviewable executive orders on the other. Both these points require further attention. Both of these issues are addressed in a serious and professional manner by David Rivkin and Lee Casey in the Wall Street Journal, and by Michael McConnell on Defining Ideas. I cannot address all of their points here. But I do hope to explain why the contrary view that I expressed survives their criticism.

It’s Not What You Say, It’s How You Say It


On Feb. 9, 1950, at a speech before the Ohio County Women’s Republican Club in Wheeling, WV, Sen. Joe McCarthy brandished a piece of paper. “I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.” But McCarthy never released the names he supposedly had, and changed his story in the days and weeks that followed about exactly how many known communists there were in the State Department. McCarthy’s irresponsible grandstanding eventually got him censured by the Senate and contributed tremendously to discrediting the whole cause of anti-communism.

Though most textbooks gloss over this part in a rush to condemn the “witch hunt” era of McCarthyism, the truth is that there were communists in the US government, and they were a serious threat. McCarthy didn’t have the names, but thanks in part to the Venona Papers (the intercepted Soviet cables declassified after the collapse of the USSR), we do. There was Harry Dexter White, a top Treasury Department official, Lawrence Duggan, head of the South American desk at the State Department, Theodore Alvin Hall, who worked on the Manhattan Project, Julius Rosenberg, an Army Signal Corps civilian employee, and Alger Hiss, a high-ranking State Department official, among many others.

The parallel to our times is the Islamist threat. President Trump is right that we face a threat from Islamists. He is right that careful vetting of immigrants, including refugees, is necessary in light of that danger. The worry is that his ham-fisted approach to a delicate problem may wind up discrediting the effort to vet immigrants, alienate our friends in the Muslim world, and empower the self-righteous left.