I've previously written about the deeply flawed District Court decision issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Trump's temporary immigration ban from certain terrorist states, including the fact that over 60 immigrants from those countries have been convicted of terrorism or aiding terrorists.
Now we have another monstrosity from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the District Court decision. You can read the decision here (PDF). The basic gist is that they walk back from some of the findings of the District Court (including that the public interest favored blocking the ban), but have instead focused on two things: that Trump's public comments indicate that the ban is racially or religiously discriminatory; and that the ban violates due process under the Constitution. And, then just for fun, they indicate that the Courts are free to interject themselves into immigration policy issues.
The Washington Post (!) has an op-ed addressing the dangerous and unprecedented reliance on campaign statements to justify blocking the ban. I'm more interested in the latter two issues because the Ninth Circuit made no attempts to distinguish between resident and non-resident aliens, or even between those already possessing a visa and those without, but made a blanket holding that Constitutional due process concerns were involved for all affected parties, and that the courts could interject themselves into what is, at heart, a political question.
As I noted in my prior post on this topic, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(f) specifically authorized the President's actions. The Ninth Circuit sidesteps this by holding that the issue is Constitutional (which, of course, overrides statutory law; except for, in practice, anti-discrimination laws). However, in Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir. 1984), the court referenced several U.S. Supreme Court cases holding that:
Although the Constitution contains no direct mandate relating to immigration matters, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the political branches of the federal government have plenary [i.e., absolute] authority to establish and implement substantive and procedural rules governing the admission of aliens to this country.It is correct, under current law, that once an alien has gained admission to the country (although simply being physically present on U.S. soil does not equate to being admitted--see Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 78 S.Ct. 1072, 2 L.Ed.2d 1246 (1958)) certain constitutional protections may accrue. But not to non-resident aliens that have not been admitted, which is what the Ninth Circuit has essentially held. And in doing so, the Ninth Circuit has held itself to be the final arbiter of "substantive and procedural rules governing the admission of aliens to this country."
The court could (and should) have limited the TRO to only certain categories of aliens (e.g., resident aliens), but it did not. So we should not forget what the Ninth Circuit has is allowing into our country: a brutal system of laws and punishments known as Sharia; terrorists or potential terrorists; and a culture and civilization inherently hostile to the West. (Note: these are links to news stories that I pulled from just this mornings headlines). If you want the real explanation for the Ninth Circuit's decision, just remember that progressives hate you.