Here is number 8 U.S. Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.
“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, the president 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.”
Over here, everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a ton of ’em.
There is precedent for everything Donald Trump has said he wants to do. And if you listen to the wizards of smart in this country and our political establishment, you will think that this stuff is just unheard of, it’s almost unspeakable, it’s just indecent. Here we have in the establishment the reputed best and brightest, the smartest. We’re not even qualified to be in their company no less. And they’re dunces on this.
In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States in 1979.
This law was passed in 1952. Do you know what was going on in 1952, among other things? There was no immigration in 1952. It was shut down. Immigration was shut down 1924 to 1965. And why did we have this? What was the need for this in 1952? Oh, yeah, we had rampant illegal immigration. I’m talking about we suspended legal immigration from 1924 to 1965, but we were being overrun in 1952 like we always are. We’re the last great hope of the world. That law was written to allow the president to keep undesirables out and to kick undesirables out. There’s no mystery.
All of these statements that Jimmy Carter made were made in public, and the announcements that he made that he was gonna send Iranians home, Iranian students home, that they had to report to immigration, they had to confirm they were here legally, those who weren’t were sent back. They put a moratorium on all Iranians being allowed in the country back in 1979.
Carter did that publicly. He announced it in public, and he announced it proudly. . . .
So here again, number 8 United States Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. “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,” meaning he doesn’t have to go back and get a new vote. This law empowers him to stand up and do what Jimmy Carter did. “He may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary –” until next week, until next year, until whenever he wants “– 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.
via Rush Limbaugh
Yeah but Jimma was a dem so it was OK.
Not only that, he won the Nobel Peace Prize!
Sorry guys, this was signed by President Truman, another Democrat, who was one of the few rational ones.
1) This law was extensively modified in the 50+ years that have passed since it was enacted. Citing it by itself is misleading.
2) The law does not supersede the Constitution.
3) We’ll find out whether Trump’s executive order is legal and constitutional, but we don’t have to wait to know that it is stupid, reckless, and dangerous.
Stupid because the order did not include people from countries whose citizens have actually committed terrorist acts here (e.g., most of 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia – not on the list.) Big difference with Carter’s order – Iran had actually committed crimes against Americans.
Reckless because it was enacted to take effect immediately with no thought for advising airport personnel or anyone else affected ahead of time.
Dangerous because it is exactly what ISIS wants us to do – demonstrate that the U.S. hates all Muslims. It’s a great recruiting tool for them.
And I’m sure you’re about to link to us the specific Constitutional Amendment that says anybody can come in any time.
Of course not, since there is no such amendment. What is problematic about this law is the phrase “any class”. It is likely that a class defined by religion or ethnicity cannot be used, as it amounts to discrimination against a protected class. Is the EO in fact discriminating on the basis of religion, even if it doesn’t single out religions specifically? That’s for the courts to decide.
The courts will decide that the president is not doing anything illegal. Sure certain specifics may be challenged, but the Executive Order on it’s own has the law behind it.
Why do you extend Rights to non citizens? What justification is in your mind? These rights are for American citizens, full stop, period. Looking forward to your reply.
Aaaannnd…..crickets. He had no reply.
Your previous complaint invalidates this argument. The fact that Saudi Arabia is not on the list is all the evidence any reasonable person needs to see that this is not a “Muslim ban”. In fact, more than 80% of Muslims in the world are unaffected by the EO. Trying to tie this to religious freedom is transparently disingenuous.
There is no “protected class” of foreigners living outside the US
Not quite. “Dangerous” is for President Trump to do nothing! The law is still the law. Your emotional post about it being ‘reckless’ with no thought is what your post evokes. Iran HAS committed crimes against the USA, The other countries HAVE posed a threat with the elements of Islamic Jihad that have constant rhetoric to destroy and harm America and it’s interests. In fact those entities have had US soldiers killed. Syria and Iran work hand in hand. The airport situation you refer to is being resolved.Not ‘stupid’ because Saudi Arabia is working with the USA to address the issues of Islamic Jihad. Also, remember it was Obama who did not want to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia or have families sue Saudi Arabia for it’s involvement according to the Commission report. Of course Obama has done this: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ
This isn’t about banning or hating “all Muslims,” and not even close. It specifically lists seven countries which are unstable and pose a direct threat to the U.S. There are many Muslim countries not on the list, including the nation with the highest population of Muslims in the world which is Indonesia. In fact, the moratorium affects less than 10% of the world’s Muslims. Let’s stop the hype and look at the facts.
No evidentiary findings that show that these seven countries pose an immediate and determential threat to the US at this time. If the premise for the argument be that in recent years individuals who reside or travel from certain countries have been known to cause terrorist acts or jeopardize
National Security protocol then the list would have to be enlarged to include other countries . As with previous presidents who showed evidence to their cases involving travel bans , the current administration must show findings to justify the EO. I think honesty it’s a judgement call but given the statements made by trump in December 2015 concerning ” shut down of all Muslims”… the court interpreted the EO based on that and other statements as well
as the lack of evidence in making their decision
Correct me if I’m wrong but does the US Constitution not apply only to US citizens meaning these immigrants that are not US citizens have no rights in this matter? This is an honest question. I am not American.
Of course. There are millions of nitwits out there who could not reason their way through a paper bag. It’s unbelievable the stupidity of most Americans.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c349b3e869b34c521e9328b040e8480003ae8bc581615397d250a6af29b4e744.jpg
Actually, no, Obama didn’t “ban Iraqi refugees”. He shut down Visa Waivers from Iraq while the security vetting process was reviewed, and people already in the country from Iraq were run through additional checks.
During that time, Iraqis coming over with Visas were allowed to enter, refugees continued to enter (at a diminished rate due to the new security measures), and new Visas continued to be issued (again, at a diminished rate).
No one says the law supersedes the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits this 65 year old law. Surely you don’t think the Constitution applies to foreigners living overseas. Thats absurd.
What modifications are you talking about that have been made to this law? What changes occurred to this law that no longer allow the POTUS to ban certain immigrants of his choosing? Please link those changes. Trump’s EO did NOT apply a religious test, anyway. The law allows a religious test on foreign people seeking entry to the US. Nothing about that violates the Constitution, which applies only to people in the US. The law allows any test whatsoever by the President for foreigners seeking entry.
You said the EO is “stupid” because it didn’t include even more terrorist countries. The list was made by the Obama admin to reflect the worst terrorist nations. Trump is using that list until vetting procedures can be reviewed. Im sure the Trump admin will develop its own list. But the POTUS can lawfully pick any nation he wants, for any reason.
This EO doesn’t ban only Muslims, as you say. That is false, even thought that would be 100% lawful. Not sure where you are getting that. There are other religions living in the nations on that list. It pauses entry from nations, not religions.
You think banning Muslims would make ISIS mad? Please explain that logic. ISIS is emboldened by weak US leadership….that’s how they were created in the first place. ISIS is living out Islam exactly the way Mohammed lived it. The command of the Koran is to infiltrate foreign nations by any means necessary, and force them to submit to Sharia.
I wonder how many relatives of the 9-11 tragedy are out their protesting?
Since the countries where the attackers were from are not on the list, they are probably a little upset with this ban. As we should all be.
There is a temporary ban and it appears that you did not regard the article at all. NO immigration in this country for almost 41 years….. Huh….
What does that have to do with my comment? It appears you didn’t even read or comprehend it. My response was that the attackers on 9-11 weren’t from any of the countries on the new banned list. I would think that the 9-11 relatives the Mr. Know It All referred to would be upset with that.
I Re-read what I wrote to you and I wasn’t clear. I think that anyone, including you, who believes that you can speak for survivors or family members that lost their families during 9/11 is rather presumptuous… meaning you are saying that the ban is wrong. You are saying we should all be upset with the ban ..to half of the people in this great nation they do not agree. For days now I have heard the media and political pundits say what the current president has done with this ban is unlawful. As this article stresses…it is not. So why do you think we all should be “upset”? Immigration in this country from 1924 to 1965 stopped because they were no jobs to provide for those immigrants coming to this country. No matter what the reasons were throughout our history in this country bans have happened and nothing this current president has done is out of his realm and ability to do.
Read the original comment in context “I wonder how many relatives of the 9-11 tragedy are out their protesting?”. Try to follow…I never said the ban was right or wrong and my initial comment was a sarcastic response to the original comment. He is saying that the 9-11 relatives would be for the ban. What I’m saying is that the 9-11 relatives should be “upset” that the ban does not include the countries from where the people that killed their loved ones came from. That is the part that is wrong, we have never been attacked by anyone from the countries on the ban list but many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is not on the list.
Good grief! I did not realize that your response to my comment was “sarcastic” (your word). Hmmmmmmmm……..I need to get “up to date” on the current nuance!
It’s actually not my word. I stole it.
Thank you for your kind and considerate answer! So many people can be so rude, and downright ugly (no offense of “ugly” people, whom I am one of) that it makes it difficult to carry on a decent conversation.
Have a blessed day!
Why should any American be upset with this temporary pause in travel to the US from Obama’s list of 7 terrorist nations? Please explain what has made you upset.
Umm, Truman didn’t sign that law. He vetoed it: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14175 His veto was overridden. At that time the issue was Eastern Europe, under the yoke of Communism, and he wrote: “We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these
countries–on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save
those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who
are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them
against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again….”
LOL…”via Rush Limbaugh” in small print…as if that lends credibility. How about the opinion of the acting Attorney General – you know – the one who might actually know the law? http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.768637
To be accurate Harry Truman vetoed it, congress overrode the veto. Basically he said it was un-american and unconstitutional. Looks like it’s finally going to be challenged.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14175
Actually it was NOT ‘signed by the President” After passage by both Democrat-led Houses, President Truman VETOED IT. But then both houses voted to override his veto, making it the law of the land.
Immigration wasn’t ” shut down” from 1924 til
1965. Law was passed restricting immigration because of new qoutas established
Millions of people immigrated to America during that time period. Trumps mother was
One of them
That law was passed in 1952. In 1965 a new law was passed which supersedes this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 (it’s Wikipedia, sure, but it’s well referenced).
Which explicitly states that the president cannot use nationality as a limiting factor in immigration. Of course, adding vetting is entirely allowed.
Interestingly, which I did not know before I read it: Immigration cannot give preferential treatment to people who live or work in the US as compared to new immigrants. If increased vetting before entry takes a month, established residents do not get preferential treatment even if that impacts their employment. It’s simply not allowed. Weird.
The new law established a quota system of desirable immigrants. It DOES NOT “explicitly state that the POTUS cannot use nationality as a limiting factor in immigration.” The POTUS is allowed to ban certain classes or individuals as he sees fit. Trump’s EO didn’t even seek to change immigration policy. It was a 90 day pause, making the faux outrage all the more ridiculous.
This code is actually a lot more substantive than the small paragraph that you’ve posted. And while it was signed into law by a democratic president, Truman actually called this code, ‘Un-American’ and ‘Discriminatory.’ He signed it because the House and Senate overrode his veto (which they can do because the president doesn’t have authoritarian power.)
And with Jimmy Carter, things were also a bit different than you led people to believe in your article here. He didn’t just up and decide to ban people from 7 unrelated countries over night, he put sanctions on Iran because 50 U.S. citizens were being held hostage, he was trying to force their hand in the situation, and he wasn’t proud and happy about that. He was trying to resolve and actual problem, an immediate threat to those 50 American’s who were living in inhuman conditions as prisoners.
But yes, if you suck out all the context and cut down Carters speech almost entirely, there is precedent and whatnot.
“Whenever the President finds…” The statute requires a finding by the president as a prerequisite to making a restrictive proclamation. In other words, it can’t be the result of a dream, personal prejudice or a whim. There must be some factual grounds supporting the president’s conclusion that the entry of the aliens are detrimental to the U.S. All the administration needs to do to win over the court is adduce evidence of potential harm, but the lack of such evidence is fatal to the administration’s case.