More Misinformation from the Media:
The first term of the Supreme court is wrapping up with a lawsuit that epitomizes the nature of the person occupying the Oval Office. . . . [T]he justices will hear oral arguments . . . in a challenge to the legality and constitutionality of President Trump’s travel ban, which indefinitely bars 150 million people, a vast majority of them Muslim, from entering the United States. . . .
The government’s response to the courts is, in short, butt out. Mr. Trump can exclude whomever he wants in order to protect the country from attack, and no judge may second guess him. That’s an astonishing claim of unchecked executive authority. It also contradicts the structure of federal immigration law, which is the province of Congress. No one is saying that the president is powerless to protect the nation from attack. What we are saying is that that he must do so without violating the law or the Constitution. . . .
[A]nyone with a passing awareness of American politics knows what is at the root of the travel ban: Mr. Trump special animus against Muslims. . . . – Will the Court Stand Up to Donald Trump? — The New York Times, The Editorial Board, 4/23/18 [Link]
Fact Check: The Times makes two arguments against the Trump travel ban, that it is based on “animus” and that it usurps the authority of Congress. The animus argument is a disturbing trend in American law. It claims that a statute or a policy may be overturned if judges determine that its author is motivated hostility toward a particular group, usually one favored by politically correct bias. It matters not, in this theory, if the law or policy has a perfectly sound legal basis. Essentially it is an attempt to replace the rule of law with ideology and political expediency.
In any case, the travel ban hardly proves that Trump hates Muslims. Certainly he has noticed the connection between Islamic dogma and terrorism. What honest and knowledgeable person hasn’t? But that’s hardly proof of animus. The travel ban permits travel from most Muslim countries. It covers only five Muslim countries, and two that are non-Muslim. The president believes these countries pose particular problems.
Does he have the legal authority to his ban. The Times is correct in saying that federal immigration law is “the province of Congress.” But its editoralists fail to mention that Congress has delegated the president the authority that Mr. Trump has exercised. The relevant statute is Section212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 (f). It states:
“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time 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.”
The wording is clear. The president may exclude “any aliens or any class of aliens” that he deems appropriate. There is no wording about whether or not he might have “animus” toward them.
What is most interesting about the Times’ claim against Trump’s authority is its blatant hypocrisy. Some years ago, Congress voted not to grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the DACA category. Ignoring the intent of Congress, President Obama ignored the constitutional separation of powers and simply decreed passage of DACA. Prior to that he often admitted that he didn’t have the right to do so. Has this usurpation of authority bothered the Times? Not at all. It maintains that Obama had the “authority to set immigration-enforcement priorities.” And besides that, said the Times, Obama had to act in the absence of congressional action because it was “the only humane choice.”
One thing is plain for sure. The hypocrites who write editorials for the Times have a special animus toward Donald Trump—and any sensible proposal to reform our dysfunctional immigration policies.