President Trump’s revised executive order has been halted, once again, by a federal judiciary which doesn’t seem to understand-or to care much about-the Constitution or its prescribed role within it. You can read Josh Blackman’s instal-analysis, which hits most of the key points.

As Mark Krikorian points out, regardless of the inherent merits of the Trump policy, the decisions rubbishing it pose a unique threat to Constitutional government as we know it. Something that the late Antonin Scalia warned about repeatedly. Not surprisingly, the state which is responsible for this latest extra-constitutional ruling has accepted less than 10 refugees for resettlement in FY 2015, none of whom hail from the Middle East.

This would be amusing if the consequences weren’t so stark.

Update: Plot twist. 

The White House won’t immediately appeal this ruling. 

Josh Blackman has an interesting post explaining the possible paths going forward for the Trump administration. 

The temporary restraining order against President Trump’s executive order is still in effect, as you probably know. Josh Blackman has a good analysis of the ruling on his website, which I would recommend reading. There are a number of fascinating and disturbing elements of this decision, including the imposition of a “no evidence” standard upon the Trump administration. Although some are attempting to put the best face on what is a sweeping, unprecedented ruling, the truth is that we are entering uncharted waters. We have the largest circuit court in the federal system essentially erasing the plenary power doctrine as it relates to immigration matters.

The fact that the administration was intentionally hamstrung in its appeal is irrelevant in the larger context, i.e. we are dealing with a federal judiciary that’s unwilling to recognize Congressional and presidential authority to execute immigration law. What’s more, the reasoning, such as it is, behind this decision is so shoddy that it would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so dire. The idea that universities and colleges have a vested interest, i.e. continuing the flow of tuition dollars from the coffers of foreign students, which supersedes the national security concerns of the President and his cabinet would be an absurdity in any other era. Keep in mind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the defiant architect of the 9/11 massacres, was brought to the United States along with other Muslim students from abroad in order to pad the enrollment and keep afloat a struggling North Carolina college.

Even if the statutory and Constitutional rationales for enjoining the President’s executive order are incredibly weak-which they are-that doesn’t make the path forward any easier. Whether the administration decides to rewrite this EO from scratch, as some have suggested, or simply appeals to the Supreme Court, those of us who believe that American interests outweigh those of foreign nationals and international organizations have already been dealt a grievous blow by a judiciary which no longer recognizes itself as a co-equal branch of government.

How long before this quasi-ironic tweet becomes a reality? I suppose we’ll find out soon enough.

The big news to come out of the President’s first weeks in office is a federal judge enjoining his executive order blocking immigration from 7 nations of concern. The motion by the Trump administration for an emergency stay has been denied by the 9th Circuit, a decision which bodes ill for its ultimate fate, as Andrew McCarthy points out, although the court will hear the challenge later today. There are a number of troubling aspects to this ruling, foremost among them being the idea that a single judge can influence American foreign policy and national security based upon specious legal reasoning. This is a distressingly familiar sight for the patriotic immigration reform movement, which has seen a single judge thwart Proposition 187-consigning California to its current dismal fate-and another obstruct the implementation of SB 1070-the law which inspired this very website.

The biggest threat to President Trump’s immigration agenda, beyond the attempt by the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP to undermine it within Congress, is judicial obstruction. Immigration law is just one of many domains usurped by the federal judiciary over the past century, however it is one of the most vital to the survival of our republic. Notwithstanding the media-generated fog, this executive order is critically important, not least because it drastically reduces the number of refugees being resettled in the United States and, to the horror of the ACLU, targets criminal aliens.

The lack of reasoning that went into this decision is transparent. As Byron York points out, this injunction-relying upon a litany of unexamined open borders cliches-has been rebutted by the Justice Department, which described in painstaking detail the plenary power exercised by the Executive Branch with regard to the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. Contrary to the Obama administration, which attempted to confer a panoply of benefits upon illegal aliens without the consent of Congress, this is a measured attempt at maintaining the security of American citizens at minimal cost/inconvenience to foreigners. Even so, the same bureaucratic forces which enabled President Obama to flout the Constitution are intent upon thwarting that very reasonable aim of the current administration.

Josh Blackman has a thorough 2 part exploration of the injunction from a statutory perspective, which I highly recommend reading. These cases will set the precedent for how immigration is dealt with going forward. Therefore, we need to address and refute the myths and exaggerations which have already taken hold in large swathes of the media landscape. We cannot allow lies to dominate the narrative, because immigration is the defining issue of our era.

As most of you probably know, a federal judge has blocked portions of President Trump’s executive order pertaining to refugees from 7 Muslim majority nations. Josh Blackman has published a good summary of what this injunction accomplishes, as well as a copy of the temporary restraining order itself. According to reports, it applies to a few hundred foreigners who were either on American soil or on their way to the United States before the EO was issued. Although these individuals have temporary avoided the fate of the character portrayed by Tom Hanks in The Terminal, it’s worth noting that there are much bigger issues at stake in this debate.

The open borders know nothings have deftly exploited the ignorance of large swathes of the American public to score a public relations victory against a man whom they’ve impotently warred against for over a year. Ironically, one of the refugees Democratic partisans claimed to be rescuing was able to succinctly explain why our new President’s immigration policies were in fact pretty reasonable. Beyond the simple observation that this executive order is not a ban on Muslim refugees, we have to confront the truly bizarre notion that our current refugee resettlement policy is somehow beneficial to American citizens. While some armchair analysts on social media have made the assertion that this is not the point of refugee resettlement-a point on which we agree-others have claimed that not importing tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from abroad poses a risk of future terrorism. By this token, Japan-which has a de facto ban on Muslim immigration-should be as unlivable as Afghanistan or Pakistan. Or, at the very least, have as many terrorist attacks as Turkey.

It’s a patently absurd suggestion, yet one which is repeated without shame by open borders apologists who have no rational justification for our country’s bizarre refugee resettlement program. Just as the beliefs of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande-two European leaders who have presided over an unprecedented spree of Muslim terror within their countries-is a laughable excuse to invite in potential security risks, so to is the misguided notion that we’re creating terrorists by not letting potential terrorists onto American soil. Nearly half of the refugees admitted to the United States, and over 30% of those admitted since the 9/11 attacks, are Muslim. To comprehend why this is such a problem you need only scroll through a week’s worth of posts on Refugee Resettlement Watch.

Leaving aside the potential for terrorism-both domestically and abroad-exploitation of the welfare system, and crime, there’s the fundamental incompatibility of cultures. As the economist Nassim Taleb has pointed out, Americans expect foreigners who come here to accept American values and customs-and at a bare minimum, not to impose their values upon us. Whether or not this is a realistic expectation is another matter, but the idea that every person coming here does so because they want to become part of American society-a notion regurgitated endlessly by open borders advocates-is simply preposterous.

Even those who don’t pose a direct threat to the health and safety of American citizens-who don’t engage in honor killings, as dozens of Muslims families in the United States do each year-hold beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with those which shaped this nation. While those views are normal in Iraq, Somalia, or Syria, they are not in the United States, and we should not attempt to normalize them-to borrow a phrase from the unhinged left. President Trump’s order, however crudely executed, was the right thing to do. Hopefully, it’s just the beginning of a completely new approach to this vital issue.

I love the title of this blog post, because it perfectly encapsulates the contempt in which this administration holds the rule of law. For those of you who haven’t been keeping track, President Obama, via royal decree, enacted an incredibly unconstitutional administrative amnesty which would have given legal immunity-as well as jobs and a slew of federal benefits-to nearly 4 million illegal aliens currently residing in this country.

After a federal judge wisely enjoined this deranged plan, the administration continued to grant work permits to these aliens-because screw separation of powers, right? 

Are you surprised by the Obama administration’s latest flagrant violation of the law? You really shouldn’t be. If this presidency had a theme song, this would be it.

As we pointed out last week, the Supreme Court has decided to weigh the merits of the President’s executive actions on immigration. One of the most interesting analyses on this subject comes by way of Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman, who accurately points out that this case is unique in that it is the only time SCOTUS has asked the White House whether it is upholding its oath to faithfully execute the law.

You can read Mr. Blackman’s essay-which delineates the importance of this case, not simply with regard to immigration, but to the separation of powers and Constitutional law-on National Review. We’d also highly recommend reading Jon Feere’s backgrounder on Texas vs. United States, which outlines the arguments being made by both parties to this historic case.