Last Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the A/G and the judge, also ruling against the president's executive order on the basis that there is "no evidence" showing a risk to the US in allowing aliens from these 7 terrorist-associated countries to come in.
They also claimed Trump's executive order was actually a "Muslim" ban---religious discrimination.
A study out Saturday reveals that there is evidence; 72 terrorists have already come into the US from these countries.
The president is expected to issue a new slightly revised executive order today.
Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University--- not a conservative, says the A/G, the judge and the Appeals Court got it wrong, and that the Supreme Court will not uphold the ruling against Pres. Trump---and it's not religious discrimination.
The Center for Immigration Studies released a study Friday that finds that the US has, in fact, arrested and convicted at least 72 individuals from the 7 terrorists sponsoring countries list in the president's immigration executive order.
The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:
Somalia: 20According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.
At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.
These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump's order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington state.
Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun.
Some opponents of the travel suspension have tried to claim that the Senate report was flawed because it included individuals who were not necessarily terrorists because they were convicted of crimes such as identity fraud and false statements. About a dozen individuals in the group from the seven terror-associated countries are in this category. Some are individuals who were arrested and convicted in the months following 9/11 for involvement in a fraudulent hazardous materials and commercial driver's license scheme that was extremely worrisome to law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies, although a direct link to the 9/11 plot was never claimed.
There are, however, a number of instances that should cause every American to support the president's efforts to protect us from terrorists.
To the uninformed court who says there is "no evidence" of refugees from these 7 countries wanting to harm anyone---wake up and do your job. Be Informed.
One such instance, which was part of the report above and part of report complied by Senate and staff from open sources, and certainly would have been known by the 9th Court if they had spent 5 minutes looking at the claims of Ferguson's suit, has to do with Abdoul Razak Ali Artan.
Artan attacked and wounded 11 people on the campus of Ohio State University in November 2016. He was a Somalian who arrived as a refugee in 2007.
On Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against President Trump’s immigration order is “not a solid decision.” And “looks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality.”
Dershowitz said, “Look, this is not a solid decision. This is a decision that looks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality. There are many, many flaws.” He added, “I think this court opinion will not ultimately be sustained by the Supreme Court. Take, for example, the argument that it’s an establishment of religion because it favors Christians or other religious minorities. In 1944 we passed the War Refugee Act, which specifically was designed to rescue a hundred thousand Jews, and everybody knew the purpose was to rescue Jews. That didn’t establish Judaism as the state religion of the United States. I think the establishment argument will fail in the Supreme Court. I think the standing arguments may fail in the Supreme Court.”
This is the video.
It's unfortunate that nearly 100 leaders from the religious Left are now demanding with a signed letter that there should be no restriction for incoming refugees---open borders. And they are making their claim, they say, based on "biblical teaching"---particularly Romans chapters 12 and 13, forgetting that chapter 12 is addressed to individual Christians and chapter 13 to government.
The Bible nowhere teaches "open borders," in fact, as we have written several times in this column---with biblical references---the Bible teaches that nations were created by God (Genesis 11) and are to be sovereign with defined borders for God's purposes.
Acts 17:26. "From one man He made every nation of men, to inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands." And verse 27 explains God's intention was "that they would seek Him, and reach out for Him and find Him, because He is not far from each one of us..."
The Bible and the Constitution and common sense all support the model of sovereign nations with borders, not open borders and globalism under the guise "compassion."
Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.