‘Affirmative right to immigrate’ made up by U.S. courts
Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz is concerned that the same American judiciary that blocked the new commander-in-chief’s immigration executive orders is now threatening to overthrow 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.”
This judicial overreach is reportedly in addition to a number of other reckless actions from America’s courts.
“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 [now] creating an ‘affirmative right to immigrate,” WND reported.
Judges across the U.S. are banding together in defiance to the commander-in-chief’s efforts to secure America’s borders and protect its citizens.
“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,” the WND report recounteed. “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 – who authored of Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America – finds it difficult to not side with Trump regarding the immigration debate and believes that the president could even be understating the need for the protective order.
“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 exclaimed. “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?”
The immigration expert also warned about the dire consequences of the judges moving forward with their politically correct insurrection that could prove hazardous to U.S. citizens.
“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,” Horowitz continued. “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.”
The irrational nature behind the reasoning of U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling in the Aloha State was then pointed out by Horowitz, who quoted the Hawaiian’s explanation for challenging the president.
“[President Trump’s executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.,” Watson insisted.
This claim was argued as false after examining the text of Trump’s immigration executive order.
“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,” WND stated. “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.”
A fiery adversary of Trump, David Frum, even conceded that the concerted effort to derail the newly sworn-in president’s travel ban is staging an attempt to radically rewrite the existing immigration law of the U.S.
“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 commented on Watson’s ruling. “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.”
Usurping the commander-in-chief and Congress?
Horowitz says that Watson’s take on the matter basically declares that the president – and even Congress – are essentially prohibited from imposing any limitation on immigration, due to their recently declared “global freedom of religion” … a newly proposed precedent that would ultimately establish a new law of the land.
“The claim being made by Judge Watson is breathtaking,” the conservative critic stressed. “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.”
He also maintains that the recent court decisions pose an existential challenge to not only Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief – as well as Congress’s as a lawmaking body – but to the foundational principals that have governed America for centuries.
“This is it – if conservatives do not push back on this, the courts will essentially mandate unlimited immigration from the entire world,” Horowitz warned. “It means that the most fundamental areas of public policy and the existence of American sovereignty will have been essentially given away to judges.”
Taking stolen power back
The acclaimed author suggested that Congress should take several actions in order to regain its authority over immigration from the renegade federal judges, as outlined below.
“[The actions] 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,” WND described Horowitz’s plan.
Horowitz emphasized that the most critical step Congress should take is to strip away any power of the courts to adjudicate any lawsuit that demands the entry of foreign nationals into the U.S. that goes against the will of other branches.
“We shouldn’t have to do any of these things, but the situation has gone too far,” he impressed. “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.”
He summed up his argument by restating what the law of the land was established to do in America.
“The Constitution works as a system of checks and balances,” Horowitz concluded. “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.”