Feb. 10, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
18:47
3590 Court Ignores Law, Affirms Ban on President Trump’s Immigration Restrictions | True News
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in the Sanctuary City of San Francisco, upheld a lower courts restraining order against President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning visitors from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan from entering the United States without extreme vetting.Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/court-ignores-lawFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
You know, there are many ways that you can lose your country, your home, your homeland.
You can be invaded.
You can be driven out.
You can be overrun.
You can bring in wildly incompatible cultures until you get a virtual or real civil war in your hands.
There are many ways that you can lose your home, lose your country.
One of the ways that's a little bit underreported, which we're going to talk about today, is Is losing respect for the laws of the land.
Now, when we grow up, when we're kids, we're told the law is your friend.
The law is there to help you, to protect you.
The law is objective.
The law is rational.
The law is moral.
That is something we are told repeatedly.
The law is there to protect you, you see, against bad people who would do you harm.
The law is your shield.
As we grow, as we ripen in years in grievances, we begin to suspect, many of us, that the law is a kind of infernal machinery set up to benefit those in power at the expense of their enemies.
That the law is a manipulated...
A bit of sophistry that is designed to be over-complicated and fairly incomprehensible and relatively subjective to give those in power the scope to reward their friends and punish their enemies using the mechanism of the law.
Now, this does benefit those in power and harm their enemies.
However, it's how you lose your country.
If the population as a whole in your country begins to suspect Or begins to believe that the law is a facade for rewarding your friends and punishing enemies for buying votes for enacting policy without the troublesome problematic challenges of public discourse and actually having to gain the allegiance of the will of the majority.
Then the law becomes not your friend nor your protector, but an enemy to be avoided and dodged and disrespected and conformed to when its bare face of power is snarling at you, but otherwise looked at askance.
Many years ago, many, many years ago now, I guess, I went on vacation with some friends to Mexico and we went to visit Chichen Itza.
And the guide, I remember very clearly, one of those magnificent Freddie Mercury Mexican mustaches, but the guide was talking about politics and I asked him what he thought of the Politicians in Mexico.
And he just spat in that contemptuous Hispanic way.
He spat on the ground and said, banditos.
Bandits.
Criminals.
And if you lose respect for the law, you have no country left.
You have the hunter and the hunted.
You have a confined farm of tax livestock.
Bellowing, running back and forth, desperate to get out, trapped within.
You've no country.
Country is based on love of the rules.
The culture is based on love of the rules.
If you fear the rules, if you suspect the rules are really put in place for a political gain, if the law becomes so complicated and confusing that no one can reliably obey it, then it is a tool of power.
The American legal system has its challenges and one of them has just erupted.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals It's very, very keen, you see, very keen to make sure the law is justly applied.
Funnily enough, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is based in Sanctuary City, San Francisco, which refuses to uphold and apply federal immigration law.
So they're kind of into the law when it benefits the left, and they're kind of not into the law when, oh, wait, no, when it benefits the left.
Yes, that's right.
I think I may be at the beginning of finding a pattern.
So the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's restraining order against Donald Trump's travel restriction executive order.
Opening the gates.
Opening the gates.
The vast majority of the refugees now swarming into the United States are coming from the seven countries identified by the Obama administration as massive security risks.
Can't tell who's coming in.
Paperwork can't be checked.
On the far side, on the other side, on the originating point of the destination, there's no particular infrastructure in place to reliably tell anyone anything about anything.
Now, in the Ninth Circuit Court...
Has been characterized as just a little bit on the left.
And has statistically been characterized as pretty sucky.
So last year, 80% of 9th Circuit Court decisions which went to the Supreme Court were overturned.
That was even higher in previous years.
So 80 plus percent fail rate for their judgment.
So they're known for juridical activism and kind of lefty decisions and so on.
So...
What is the question?
Well, naively perhaps I decided to go to the law itself to see if I could puzzle this out.
Remember, I'm no lawyer, but I have been trained in logic and philosophy, so I think if I can't understand it, it may not be a particularly great decision.
That's not...
Anything expert, but I think it may be something reasonable.
So what does the law say itself?
This is from the U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 2, Part 2, Squiggle 1182.
See, when you already have the entire vertical stack of the Dungeons& Dragons rulebook, and you've not even started in your legal system, let alone your tax code system...
It might be time for a bit of a rollback.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
But it's okay.
Because most of the people who'd want to enact that rollback are lawyers who profit from the complexity.
So, this is the part of the law that is relevant.
Inadmissible aliens.
F. Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president.
And here we go.
The entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
I'm not going to read that again, but that seems pretty clear to me.
Not a Latin phrase in there in any way, shape or form.
He can stop any class for any reason, for any length of time, or have any other restrictions.
Pretty much that's what it says.
That's the first part.
The second part, also quite relevant, particularly to these seven countries.
And I quote, whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection Of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States,
including the training of personnel in such detection, the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Also remember that terrorist groups have gotten hold of thousands of blank passports, so...
There's that.
And this has been going on forever.
Ronald Reagan restricted immigration five times.
George H.W. Bush did it once.
Bill Clinton, 12 times.
George W. Bush did it six times.
And President Barack Obama restricted immigration 19 times, including four times directly on Muslim countries.
No particular hue and cry.
But now, ooh, apparently massive principles are being violated.
So what do the court claim?
How do you...
Reject or bypass what seems to me, at least, a pretty obvious statute.
Well, this is what they claimed.
They claimed that Washington and Minnesota had legal standing to bring claims because it, quote, harms to their proprietary interests.
Huh.
So one of the arguments is, well, we've got state colleges, and if people aren't flowing in from these seven war-torn, racked countries, maybe we'll be out some tuition money.
Or maybe all of these, you know, wonderful particle physics researchers flooding in from Somalia won't be able to get a job here.
So it's harming our interests if people can't come into the country.
Huh.
Now, if immigration is going to be run by whether or not it harms people's interest, then you have no immigration policy whatsoever.
The famous president asked for a one-armed economist.
Why?
He said, so finally I don't have an economist standing in front of me saying, on the other hand, right, it's all the balance.
Every cost is a benefit.
Every benefit is a cost.
So, for instance, Tens of thousands of dollars a year for a refugee.
The taxpayer has to fund that bill.
Billions of dollars are being handed out to organizations, churches and other people to resettle.
So it's negative for the taxpayer.
For these people to come in.
So it may be beneficial to the university, although it is displacing American and American-born people to go and work at the university.
There'll be students there.
It is negative to the American taxpayer.
It may also be negative to people who might be the victims of a terror attack.
So can the taxpayers bring a lawsuit and say, well, we have proprietary interests that are being harmed by this?
Huh.
I wonder.
I just wonder.
Now, this ruling saying, well, you can't restrict immigration if it's going to impact us negatively financially, it has some benefits to, you know, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, all of these aristocrats who have organized their business models around having cheap labor without any bargaining power.
They're kind of chained to their desks.
They can't even...
So, yeah, they've got that particular approach.
Now, of course, I'm sure the left is going to really hate all of that stuff because they really are into protecting the rights of workers, but no.
No, no, no.
Consistency among the left, yeah, I'll search for that next time I get a Mohawk.
So, this ruling has left the door open to expanding due process rights to anybody, anywhere in the world who wants to enter the United States and would be harmed potentially by not being allowed to In.
State Attorney Generals could bring cases on behalf of non-citizens.
Taxpayer-funded non-citizens lawsuits demanding entry into the country.
See, here's the thing, everyone.
I know America's kind of in denial in many ways, and it has been ever since George the Younger left office and the anti-war movement.
Poof!
Vanished like Captain James T. Kirk leaving an imprint on a tentacle with nine boobs.
Vanished.
Vanished.
So there's this kind of denial that America's at war.
But when Barack Obama, first president in U.S. history, to be at war every single day of his presidency, drops after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, drops 100,000 bombs on Muslim countries, largely in the Middle East.
Kind of at war.
So you're kind of at war.
And the people you're at war with, and are terrorist extremists, have openly stated and openly said that they're going to embed terrorists in the migrants and in Iraq.
The refugees coming into America, into the West, into America in particular in this case.
Bombing them, you know, invade everyone, invite everyone.
What could go wrong?
You bomb them and they say, well, we're going to get back at you by embedding terrorists.
So that's how they're going to fight back.
And here you have an unelected judge, a series of judges, interfering with border controls imposed by the US president It's the equivalent of wartime.
Wartime.
Now, the court claimed the government provided no evidence of terrorist attacks from these seven countries that was identified under the Obama administration as security risks.
No evidence of attacks.
Oh, here's a quick question.
Here's a quick quiz.
Can you go into a search engine?
And just see if there's any kind of evidence for attacks from these countries.
Because it will take you about 30 seconds, but apparently that's about 30 seconds too long for judges with an agenda.
So the Washington Examiner reported 60 terrorists from these countries between September 11th, 2001 and 2014.
The Daily Caller reports that since 2014, 20 terrorists have come from these travel banned countries.
Do the judges, do you know how to type into a little box?
Just a question!
The court also rejected the idea that the president maybe, just maybe, might have classified information beyond what can be disclosed to a judge.
I mean, this is the reason why the law grants the president the power to control immigration, because he has access to all of the information that judges don't.
Oh, if only these judges had the proper security clearance, maybe Americans could be kept safe.
The court also detailed...
Oh, yes, you see, they say, we as judges, well, we can take more than just the contents of specific executive orders into our analysis of their legality.
The court claimed it could speculate and rule based on the intent behind these executive orders.
Trump said at one point he wanted a Muslim ban.
Therefore, we can speculate that this is really motivated by wanting a Muslim ban, although it doesn't specify Muslims, only a series of countries, the names of which were generated by the Obama administration.
Therefore, thought crime!
We're psychic!
We know what's going on deep in the hearts and minds of those we're judging.
We don't need any facts because we can divine motivations.
Oh yeah, that's going to go just beautifully for objective law, isn't it?
So, what's happening next?
Well, Trump is hinting that they're going to come back next week with a revised order.
The Department of Justice could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, but before Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed, a couple of weeks from now, as the ninth justice...
If the judges vote along party lines, which just shows you how objective the law has become, you'd end up with a 4-4 tie, and a 4-4 tie would actually affirm the lower courts, the Ninth Circuit's decision, and that would be pretty disastrous.
America would basically have no borders to speak of.
Now, they could continue litigation in district court, or Trump could draft a new order, which I imagine is the most likely outcome.
So, What's going on?
What's going on?
Judges are not supposed to make law, right?
You can judge a singing contest or you can be in the singing contest.
You can't be both.
Judges are just supposed to passively interpret the law and apply the law.
This kind of activism, which has been going on in America, in my opinion, for a long time, far too long, should never have started, should have been tamped down long ago.
Because...
It's supposed to be a democracy.
The whole point of voting is because you like the guy or the gal and you want them to implement the policies they talked about.
Trump talked about these kinds of restrictions.
55% of Americans approve of Trump's order.
Only 33% oppose it.
Do you know, actually, in Europe, the majority of people want a Trump-style ban as well.
Or more.
But let's find out whether this democracy thing is true or just a sham for those in power.
So Trump was elected to do this.
These judges were not elected and are legislating from the bench, in my humble opinion.
This should, I believe, frighten and anger you.
Frighten and anger you.
If there's a clear law in front of you and you think you're obeying it, but judges can make up stuff, Just make up stuff.
Oh, no one's been attacked yet that we know of, therefore let people in.
That's not your job.
That's the president's job.
Damn it!
Because if judges can just make up stuff, there's no rule of law left in the United States.
It's all arbitrary.
It can be changed on the roll of dice on the whim of an activist judge.
That's not the job of a judge!
Read, don't write.
That's the job of a judge.
If the law is perceived to reflect power and not morality, the law can no longer hold the allegiance of the people.
It becomes a game of cat and mouse, of whack-a-mole, of what can I get away with?
Not what is right, not what is honorable, not what is decent, not what I revere and respect.
Respect for the rules of a society is the very foundation of that society.
And the fact that everyone is opposing Trump, I hope can help you understand just how different his administration is, what it's like to have somebody not beholden to special interests facing down these legions of historically corrupted and corrupting powers.
If America loses its respect for the law.
It loses everything.
If the law is perceived as a tool of the powerful to oppress the powerless, there'll be no more need to invite the third world into America.
