Supremely well done, SCOTUS upholds “travel ban”

People with a brain in their head, including the President, recognized the "travel ban" for what it is. Not what hysterical leftists said it was.


WASHINGTON, June 26, 2017 — The irony of today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding most of President Trump’s “travel ban” will be lost to most Democrats.

The ruling hinged on the validity of a provision within the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. Its Democratic sponsors, Sen. Pat McCarran, D-Nev., and Rep. Francis Walter, D-Penn., steered the bill through both houses of Congress in an effort to strengthen national security in the early days of the Cold War:

“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.”

Sen. Pat McCarran (D-NV) and Rep. Francis Walter (D-PA).

The high court said it will consider whether the ban’s application to predominantly Muslim nations violates the Constitution’s religion and due process clauses.

Another aspect of this ruling, one not touched upon by the mainstream media, is how upholding the 1952 law impacts its revision: The Immigration Reform Act of 1965.

In 1998, Democratic political consultant Patrick Reddy wrote,

“The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

In her book “Adios America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole,” conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter observed:

Conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter.

“Liberals had tried convincing Americans to vote for them, but that kept ending badly. Except for Lyndon Johnson’s aberrational 1964 landslide, Democrats have not been able to get a majority of white people to vote for them in any presidential election since 1948. Their only hope was to bring in new voters. Okay, fine. You won’t vote for us, America? … We’re going to overwhelm you with new voters from the Third World.”

The truth in Coulter’s statement was made clear in a postmortem to the 2016 presidential election that appeared in the New York Times:

“Hillary Clinton led in nearly every national poll—and in other surveys in the states worth the requisite 270 electoral votes … Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous wave of support among white working-class voters.”

In other words, Trump’s campaign speeches condemning bad international trade deals, their depressing effects on manufacturing, the adverse effects of high corporate tax policies on manufacturing and the growth of the American economy and unfettered illegal immigration, spoke to the country’s majority, galvanizing them into action and spurring them to the polls in numbers not seen in decades.

In February, Time magazine noted in an article praising the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ injunction against Trump’s travel ban:

“In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an amendment to the 1952 law that changed the composition of immigration into the U.S. by eliminating discriminatory quota imbalances … stipulating that immigrants could not be denied a visa because of race, sex, nationality or place of birth.”

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

Does Monday’s Supreme Court ruling override the 1965 amendment to the 1952 immigration law? Does it give the president unilateral power to stop the importation to America of the world’s poor and those hostile to assimilation?

The next executive order or tweet may tell.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.