Update April 30th: Jihad Watch: Bishops to Americans: Drop dead!
Did you know that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops filed an amicus brief against the Trump Administration in the travel ban case before the high court?
I didn’t, but it really isn’t a surprise.
Of course, they are free to file briefs, but I just wish they would for once admit that they receive millions of your dollars from the US Treasury every year for their Migration Fund (nearly $100 million to the Bishops alone, not including the other millions that go to Catholic Charities to ‘care’ for those migrants).
Just once I wish they would admit they have a pecuniary interest in how the travel ban is resolved.
According the NPRpeople lined up as early as this past Sunday in order to get a coveted seat for the hearing on the President’s travel ban.
National Public Radio‘s Nina Totenberg has a lengthy, pretty straightforward, story. Here is a bit of it:
The Supreme Court’s Grand Finale: Trump’s Travel Ban
The Trump administration’s travel ban finally reaches the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, posing enormous questions involving the structure of the American government and the values of the country.
At issue is the third version of the ban — which the president has complained is a “watered down” version. The court allowed it to go into effect while the case was litigated, but the lower courts have ruled all three versions either violate federal law or are unconstitutional.
Like the earlier two bans, version 3.0 bars almost all travelers from six mainly Muslim countries, and it adds a ban on travelers from North Korea and government officials from Venezuela.
The questions in the case are the stuff of history:
~Can the courts even review a presidential order on immigration that invokes national security?
~Did the president violate the immigration law’s command against discrimination based on nationality?
~And does the executive order violate the Constitution’s ban on religious discrimination?
The travel-ban argument will be the last of the term. And the importance of the argument is not lost on the court. For the first time since the same-sex-marriage arguments in 2015, the court is allowing same-day distribution of the session’s audio. Nonetheless, people started lining up at 7 a.m. Sunday in hopes of snagging a seat Wednesday.
The court itself will be under extreme pressure. There are only about two months left in the term and an unusually large number of cases yet to be decided.
One key question is this one:
Can the court consider Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric?
Since so many of you have sent me links about U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle who temporarily halted the refugee travel ‘ban,’ I thought I better mention the latest.
Although, I must say I hate writing about this subject (maddening that these unelected judges are deciding national security issues!), I have to mention that the Justice Department is saying once again that resettlement contractors have no “bona fide relationship” with refugees before they are admitted to the US.
And, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society(of course) disagrees.
LOL! I guess this is going to be pick-on-HIAS week after all, see my post yesterday where we learned HIAS was placing refugees in dangerous housing in Pittsburgh. And, don’t miss the latest on their funding here.
You know who could settle this issue once and for all, if they had any guts—-Congress!
There was never any “bona fide relationship” mentioned, let alone defined, in the original Refugee Act of 1980. The term, and now the wrangling over the definition, was created out of whole cloth by the US Supreme Court foolishly attempting to write refugee law. (See my Supreme Court category, here.)
So where is Congress?
Here is the latest on the latest lawsuit (within days it will all change again!) from the Washington Post:
SEATTLE — Lawyers with the Department of Justice have asked a federal judge to change his order that partially lifted a Trump administration refugee ban.
Just before Christmas, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle imposed a nationwide injunction that blocks restrictions on reuniting refugee families and partially lifted a ban on refugees from 11 mostly Muslim countries. Robart limited that part of the injunction to refugees who have a bona fide relationship with people or entities in the United States. He also said that refugees who have formal agreements with refugee resettlement agencies were covered under his order.
The government does not want to include resettlement agencies.
Government lawyers filed a motion Wednesday saying that although the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the “bona fide relationship” to include connections to resettlement agencies, the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed that ruling. That means the highest court indicates it disagrees with the appeals court on that point, the lawyers say.
Attorneys for refugee support organization HIAS and Jewish Family Service say the government’s claims are wrong.
In the motion filed Wednesday, government lawyers cited the Supreme Court’s three stay orders on previous Trump travel bans as evidence the high court disagrees with letting the bona fide relationship include refugee resettlement agencies or humanitarian organizations.
“For individuals, a close familial relationship is required,” the lawyers wrote. “’As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course,’ such as a relationship between a foreign student and an American university or between a foreign worker and an American employer.
“Unlike these types of relationships, refugees do not have a freestanding connection to resettlement agencies, apart from the refugee admissions process itself, by virtue of the agency’s assurance agreement with the federal government.”
Bottomline for me is that this all points to one more reason to get rid of the nine federal contractors that monopolize all resettlement in America. They are litigious. They are Leftist community organizers. And, we pay them with our tax dollars to work against the interests of America First!
I repeat: Where is Congress?
Here are the nine (go here to see how much you involuntarily pay them!). HIAS seems to have become their litigation arm!
Truth be told, I never fully immersed myself in the travel ban issue as I saw it as separate from what I’ve been concentrating on. I’ve thought from the beginning that the President should never have mixed the two issues (US Refugee program and a travel restriction) in that first Executive Order and thus thoroughly confused the general public.
And, allowed the Supreme Court to muck around and write refugee law (see my Supreme Court category by clicking here.)
That said, I’m reporting here a brief summary from CNN of what happened yesterday. We will have a better understanding when the refugee industry gets in gear today and begins blasting away at Trump again.
Washington (CNN)The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the newest version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to take effect pending appeal.
This is the first time justices have allowed any edition of the ban to go forward in its entirety. It signals that some of the justices might be distinguishing the latest version from previous iterations and could be more likely, in the future, to rule in favor of the ban.
Issued in September, the third edition of the travel ban placed varying levels of restrictions on foreign nationals from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.
Readers need to know that the only country in that list that we take significant refugees from is Somalia (and not even directly from Somalia, but from Kenya and elsewhere). So I assume this doesn’t completely close the Somali spigot for now, but I suspect this will make it harder for those Somali ‘refugees’ living in the US to travel back and forth to Somalia (the country they were supposedly escaping) as they have been doing!
We have been taking some ‘refugees’ from Iran, but most have been those practicing minority religions and not Muslims. And, although there was a big push for Syrians that number didn’t reach monumental numbers. Those other countries in the restricted list send very few (none in some cases) refugees to the US.
Countries from which we do receive Muslim refugees that are not on the travel ban list are: Burma (growing number of Rohingya entering US now), Iraq, Afghanistan, and several African countries. So this travel ban is in no way a Muslim ban!
Lower courts in two separate challenges had partially blocked the ban.
The order is a significant temporary win for the Trump administration, which has fought all year to impose a travel ban against citizens of several Muslim-majority countries. Monday’s order means it can be enforced while challenges to the policy make their way through the legal system.
The Trump administration has maintained that the President has the authority to install travel bans in order to protect national security.
“The Constitution and acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prevent aliens abroad from entering this country when he deems it in the nation’s interest,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court papers. Francisco argued that the ban was necessary “in order to protect national security.”
The White House said it was “not surprised” by Monday’s order.
More later when some bright legal minds weigh in.
And, remember this isn’t the end of it since there are still cases working their way through the lower courts.