Twitter and email info

Thursday, March 30, 2017

A reasonable solution to the debate over President Trump's Executive Order on refugees.

Less than three months into Donald Trump's Presidency, its become obvious that the opposition will oppose and obstruct everything the Trump Administration attempts to achieve.  I realize I'm wasting my time when I ask certain questions, but can you imagine the indignation of the Democrats if the GOP had behaved in the same manner to Barack Obama, who had his cabinet approved with no drama and his Supreme Court choices approved by near unanimous votes?  Regardless, President Trump will outlast his opponents because the Constitution is on his side.  For instance, President Trump's Executive Order delaying the resettlement of refugees for a three-month or less time period, while Homeland Security and the FBI complete thorough reviews of each applicant, is authority guaranteed the Executive Branch by the Constitution.  Barack Obama put a six-month ban on refugees from Iraq in 2011, and other Presidents also exercised this authority, with not a word of disagreement.  A quick check of Google will turn up volumes of commentary pointing out that Trump targeted a handful of nations, while Obama only focused on Iraq; but the issue is not about the differences in what Obama and Trump were trying to accomplish, this issue is about the legality of the Executive Order.  The fact that previous Presidents have delayed immigration and refugee resettlement for National Security concerns, makes it clear that such authority rests with the Executive Branch, not with District Courts. 

President Trump's original Executive Order included Iraq, which caused a great deal of inconvenience for Iraqis who had assisted the U.S. government during the last war, from legal resettlement in the United States.  After District Judge James Rodart in Seattle ruled against Trump, instead of pushing the appeals process all the way to the Supreme Court, Trump and his legal team removed Iraq from the Executive Order.  Actually, Judge Rodart wasn't that interested in potential injustices dealt to the Iraqi community.  His justification for ruling against the Executive Order was its "apparent" discrimination against Muslims.  Since President Trump had been quoted on the campaign trial occasionally talking about Muslim refugees and immigration, Rodart makes the assumption that Trump is a racist, and that the Executive Order purposely targets Muslims solely based on their religion.  Can we assume that if Trump added Norway and Luxemburg to the list, Rodart would change his ruling? Don't count on it.  As expected, President Trump issued a re-worded Executive Order, basically with the same intent, but with Iraq removed.  And as anticipated, Hawaii, a left-leaning state, and Obama-appointed District Judge Derrick Watson wasted no time in ruling against Trump once again, but with the same justification.  Both Rodart and Watson believe that President Trump's Executive Orders are motivated by racism and unfairly target Muslims.  The problem is, neither Judge has the authority to rule against the Executive Branch on this issue, just as any Republican District Judge who decided to rule against President Obama in 2011 would have been overstepping his authority.

Sadly, my argument will fall on deaf Democrat ears, but I have an idea that makes so much sense, we just might make a breakthrough.  If Trump would be willing to withdraw his Executive Order on refugees, and forego a Supreme Court showdown which likely would be won by the Administration, would Hawaii and Washington State, which seem oh-so proud of their District Judges, be willing to accept and resettle the refugees in their respective states?  At this point, the numbers don't seem to be overwhelming, and I know that the great Northwest has lots of space to fill up, so why not take on this responsibility?  Why should Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other "Red States", be beholden to an Oregon or Hawaii-based District Judge's ruling?  If Oregon and Hawaii can thumb their nose at a legal Executive Order from the President of the United States, then why should the twenty-some Red States have to accept refugees because of decisions made by two activist, progressive District Judges?  To get to the heart of the matter, I'm getting a bit tired of liberals who feel some obligation to save the world, trying to force the results of their agenda on everyone else.  If YOU feel that way, then YOU take the refugees!  Its actually quite simple.  California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Illinois, Washington and Hawaii are all wealthy states in their own right, and are in a much better position financially to support an influx of refugees, as opposed to Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama and South Carolina, who are not.  The important message here?  The latter states would no doubt approve of President Trump's Executive Order, and the former would not.  We have an opportunity to agree on something here, folks.  President Trump needs to forego any additional Executive Orders dealing with refugees, and the seven states mentioned above agree to accept responsibility for the refugees.  I see no reason why this shouldn't work, at least until some event forces us to regain our common sense, drop political correctness and all the nastiness that has replaced normal discourse, and start working together again.  Heck, maybe we can get President Trump to cancel his Twitter Account as part of the deal.  That might be too much to hope for......

No comments:

Post a Comment