WA State Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced yesterday he is suing President Trump over his Executive Order that suspended immigration from 7 countries with majority Muslim populations.
Mr. Ferguson and the State have distinguished themselves by suing Christians for practicing their deeply held religious beliefs regarding traditional marriage---Baronnell Stutzman of Richland--- and the dispensing of abortion pills---the Stormans pharmacy in Olympia, and others regarding public prayer, etc.
Gov. Inslee says, "Me Too."
Now they are distinguished as the first state to take on the president because, according to A/G Ferguson, "No one is above the law---not even the president."
Agreed. But who is acting as though they are above the law?
After the beating of Christians in Washington state by A/G Ferguson, it's difficult to swallow his missive of morality.
It's also a bit difficult to embrace the moral leadership of the Seattle Times in their editorial late yesterday afternoon titled, "A Morally Bankrupt, inept executive order on immigration."
Reuters News Service International is reporting, "Washington will be the first state to take on the executive order that went into effect on Friday, heightening the legal stakes surrounding the order that has sparked global backlash."
A/G Ferguson told the press, "No one is above the law---not even the president---And in the courtroom, it is not the loudest voice that prevails. It's the Constitution."
Gov. Inslee says of the executive order on immigration, "It is an insult and a danger to all people of the state of Washington, of all faiths."
While Seattle, a good part of King County and a few counties in the Puget Sound Crescent, as it is called, probably agree with the Governor and A/G whom they elected, however, a survey from Rasmussen shows America more closely reflects those who live east of the Cascades.
A Ramussen Report Survey published yesterday reveals that 57% of likely US voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here.
Only 33% are opposed. And 10% don't know what they believe.
The same survey also reveals that 56% of likely voters favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents from these same countries from entering the United States until the government gets up to speed on its ability to screen for terrorists. Only 32% oppose the temporary ban, and 11% don't know what they believe.
Clearly, Ferguson and Inslee are in step with a majority in Seattle and the close in Puget Sound area, but way out of step with the country, including Eastern and Central Washington.
Many believe they are also out of step with the Constitution.
Ferguson's office says his complaint claims that the president's actions are "separating Washington families, harming thousands of residents, damaging Washington's economy, hurting Washington-based companies, and undermining Washington's sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees."
Ferguson is claiming the president's actions are in violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection and The First Amendment's Establishment Clause---and it infringes on an individual's constitutional right to Due Process and contravenes the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.
Far Left progressive Seattlite Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post (DC) newspaper, and local executives of Expedia agree with the A/G.
Ferguson is asking the court to schedule a hearing within the next 14 days.
Is A/G Ferguson, Gov. Inslee, Jeff Bezos, Execs at Expedia---and the others, in or out of step with the Constitution?
Matt Vespa wrote an article for Town Hall yesterday with this title: "Yes, The Trump Executive Order On Immigration Is Legal."
Vespa begins with this: "This weekend saw the institutional Left go into another frenzy over President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration, specifically the so-called Muslim ban."
He says we are hearing "It's unconstitutional. It's illegal. It's not who we are. Rabble. Rabble. Rabble."
While not necessarily supportive of Trump's actions---for other reasons, apparently, Vespa takes a deep dive into the constitutionality of Trump's order, quoting lawyers, including two at the National Review who conclude that it is indeed constitutional.
While Bob Ferguson and Jay Inslee may represent the first state to sue the president, they certainly won't be the last. To be informed, I encourage you to dive into the story and read the legal reasons Ferguson and Inslee and the 36% are wrong on the issue of constitutionality.
They are not likely to win this one in court. And speaking of "Court" and "Constitutionality," President Trump will nominate his replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Scalia tonight at 8 PM Eastern Time.
Neither are these social champions synced up with tens of millions of Christians in America.
While there is a strong representation of the religious Left in the city of Seattle, such as First Baptist Church, it's delusional to think that the majority of the Christian community agree with them on their moral case.
The Bible simply does not support open borders.
My friend Byran Fischer wrote an excellent article on the subject a few years ago. It's perhaps more relevant today than when he wrote it. Share this with your Christian friends who are uncertain as to what the Bible teaches on the matter of borders.
God and Borders
What we learn from the Bible is that borders are God’s idea, and that such borders are to be respected. They are not to be crossed without permission.
Crossing a border without permission is like breaking in the back door of a house to help yourself to goodies instead of being invited in by the host through the front door. You might get to eat either way, in the same house and from the same cupboard, but in one case you would be doing something respectful and civil and in the other doing something that rightly should land you in jail.
The Scriptures make it clear that national sovereignty, including clearly defined borders, is God’s idea. In Acts 17:26, we read, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place…”
Two things, we are told, are under God’s sovereign control: how long a nation lasts, and where its borders are. The verb translated “having determined” is the Greek verb “horizo,” from which we get the word “horizon.” It means “to mark out, to define.” So God has marked out and defined the borders of each country.
Our southern border is there by God’s design. To disregard it, to treat it as if were not there, to regard it as something not worth respecting and defending, is an insult to the God who put it there for our benefit.
The bulk of the second half of Joshua is a record of the promised land being divided up among the 12 tribes. What is striking is how thorough and detailed the description of each tribal boundary is. In Joshua 15 the word “boundary” is found no less than 15 times in describing the perimeter of Judah.
For instance, here’s the description of the southern boundary: “It goes out southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, passes along to Zin, and goes up south of Kadesh-barnea, along by Hezron, up to Addar, turns about to Karak, passes along to Azmon, goes out by the Brook of Egypt and comes to its end at the sea. This shall be your southern boundary” (Joshua 15:3-4). Such detailed delineations go on for chapter after chapter.
Even regarding private property, curses were pronounced on anyone who moved a boundary marker, a stone which delineated the perimeter of privately owned land. Borders, boundaries and property lines clearly matter to God.
That such national boundaries are to be respected is made plain by no less a personage than Moses himself. In a largely forgotten passage, Numbers 20:14-21, we read that Moses sought permission from the king of Edom to cross his border and pass through his land. When permission was refused, Moses didn’t force his way in; he respected the king’s decision and went around Edom to the East.
Moses couched his original request this way: “Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from a well…we will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.”
The king’s response? “You shall not pass through.” Moses tries a second time to secure an entrance visa. “We will go up by the highway, and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then I will pay for it. Let me only pass through on foot, nothing more.”
The king of Edom was utterly impervious to this plea for so much as a tourist visa. “You shall not pass through.” How did Moses react to this denial of permission to immigrate into and through the sovereign territory of another nation? Did he barge ahead anyway? Try to sneak in under cover of darkness? Did he launch a military strike to secure passage? Nope. “Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him.”
The lesson? Each nation’s sovereignty is marked by its boundary, and each nation has the moral right to decide who will be given permission to enter its sovereign territory. Moses recognized this, and so should we. The only exception is under circumstances of a just war.
Bottom line: borders are biblical, and are there by God’s sovereign design. And they are to be respected by everyone.
Be Prayerful. Be Informed. Be Strong. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning.