Trump Court Carry-On Based on Obama Precedent

The court order halting U.S. President Donald Trump’s “travel ban” is based—ironically—on an identical court order against an Executive Order issued by former President Barack Obama granting protection to children of illegal immigrants.

The May 2015 ruling, issued by a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, blocked Obama’s program to protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation from going into effect.

Obama announced in 2012 that he would allow illegal immigrants brought to the country as children to register with the federal government in exchange for two-year protections from deportation.

A federal judge blocked Obama’s plan in February 2015, just hours before many of them were to start applying for the new program. He then launched a second program—also with an Executive Order—to allow more illegal aliens and older illegals who had U.S. citizen children, to qualify for protection from deportation.

U.S. District Judge James L. Robart—a well-known leftist extremist who openly supported the terrorist-linked “Black Lives Matter” organization, and who worked to help illegal immigrants from South East Asia—adopted much of the Texas’s courts’ reasoning in making his order nationwide.

Federal judges do not often issue nationwide orders, but they have the power to do so.

Judges use nationwide orders most typically when they decide that limiting a ruling to a particular district would be impracticable, and this was a key part of Judge Robart’s order.

He specifically rejected the Trump administration’s argument that any restraining order should be limited to the two plaintiff states, Washington and Minnesota, saying that a “partial implementation would undermine the constitutional imperative of a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and Congress’s instruction that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”





As expected, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected a request from the Justice Department to immediately reinstate the order, asking for more court filings before it rules on the matter.

The Court of Appeals has ordered that both parties must submit arguments by the end of Monday, February 6. If the Ninth Circuit Court allows a stay, the case would then go back to Judge Robart, who would move forward with the case.

If the Ninth Circuit Court declines to enter a stay, the Trump Administration will have no choice but to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If however the Court does order a stay, the plaintiffs are also likely to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In reality, U.S. law specifically gives the president alone the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States.

U.S. Code § 1182 (“Inadmissible aliens”), section (f), specifically states:

(f)SUSPENSION OF ENTRY OR IMPOSITION OF RESTRICTIONS BY PRESIDENT

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


Recommended For You

9 Comments

  1. One would think that judges would support their own indigenous people. Obviously these low life lefty b*stards don’t. Scum of the earth!

  2. UK judges are just as bad (they too think they’re gods). Just look at Brexit shenanigans. Did you know that their wigs are made out of horse tail hair? And tail is never far from an a**ehole.

  3. The 4 planes involved on 9/11 had at least 16 ‘aliens’ who had got into America, some trained to fly aircraft, and as an ordinary member of the public like the rest of us, it can be reasonably assumed that Donald Trump was furious that this had happened. Since then, with all the other atrocities around the world by islamic extremists, surely people must realise that an open door policy is like ‘shooting yourself in the foot’? Politics does not enter the frame when it comes to protecting your own borders and countrymen/women. Deep down, these anti-Trump events are in some ways a form of ‘treason’, but that’s just my opinion.

  4. “In reality, U.S. law specifically gives the president alone the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States.”
    .
    It’s terrific to see Internet allowing the publication of facts which the media dislike, in this case what most people would presumably think of as an obscure point of law.
    .
    Let’s hope the White House teams read this site and do the appropriate checks. If this is correct, perhaps the incompetent judge might be removed, preferably to an African state.

    1. Mr. Trump owed it to us to defy this court ruing from the start. While the court battle rages, many of the very foreigners he wanted to exclude have been coming in. By this means the leftist judge got to nullify a statute and rob the president of his statutory authority.

  5. The following video shows the political opportunism and the hypocrisy of the DNC….

    MAJOR democrats, not very long ago, SUPPORTED not only a barrier but a WALL to stop illegals.

    All those chicken neck democrats that today cry “wold” on President Trump.

    Take a look:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.