It has become an overused trigger word nowadays. People, who want to get rid of a law or regulation that they do not like, will throw around the word “unconstitutional” to get others to join in their opposition.
Such tactics are very effective in our over-emoting illogical culture. People hear that it is unconstitutional and they are ready to oppose it, even if they have no understanding of why it is so. This is the case with Trump’s immigration ban.
A federal judge in Seattle has issued a nationwide restraining order halting parts of the executive action signed by President Donald Trump that temporarily bars some immigrants and refugees from seven predominantly Muslim countries — a move that the Washington state attorney general called “historic” and indicated that “no one is above the law.”
The ban temporarily halted immigration from terrorist hotbeds in an effort to improve the vetting process. This has, of course, raised the ire of the Left as unconstitutional. This caused a lawsuit and the subsequent decision mentioned above. But what we have to ask is, in what way was this order illegal or unconstitutional?
Did Trump overstep his bounds as president? Well, it is clear that the Constitution rests most of the power for immigration in the POTUS. And we can also say that Trump also worked in a similar way as Obama did in 2011. But more importantly, and most disturbing to the Left, Trump violated no one’s Constitutional rights.
The Constitution does not guarantee any person or state the right to have or accept refugees, immigrants or asylum seekers. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there a promise of the right to import workers, refugee or otherwise.
This means the only Constitutional rights that could even remotely be mentioned in this case would be that of the Immigrants themselves. The problem is that the rights recognized by the Constitution are not applicable to everyone everywhere.
They may in their broadest sense be claimed for everyone as they are given by God, but the protection of the Constitution, even in its most general sense can only apply to citizens and those living within our borders.
Only the globalist, in his borderless Utopian dream, could imagine that the asylum seeker’s Constitutional rights were violated here.
This will shortly be overturned.