Share This Article with a Friend!

Impeach Democrat Judges Who Welcome Jihadis And Welfare Grifters To America

Trump travel ban
Our friends at NewsMax have alerted us that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia will hear arguments Tuesday in three lawsuits filed by U.S. citizens and permanent residents whose relatives have been unable to enter the U.S. because of President Trump’s ban on travel of certain hotbeds of Islamist terrorism, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.

The Supreme Court upheld a version of the administration’s travel ban in a 5-4 ruling in 2018, establishing that the president held substantial leeway over immigration law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling upheld a version of the ban that applied to Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia; Yemen, Chad, North Korea and Venezuela have also been on the ban list at one time or another. The White House is reportedly considering adding Nigeria, Belarus, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania as early as this week.

“We’re adding a couple of countries to it. We have to be safe. Our country has to be safe,” Trump said during a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, according to reporting for The Hill by Brett Samuels. “You see what’s going on in the world. Our country has to be safe. So we have a very strong travel ban, and we’ll be adding a few countries to it.”

According to NewsMax the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked to decide whether a federal judge in Maryland made a mistake when he refused to dismiss constitutional claims made in a lawsuit filed by the International Refugee Assistance Project despite a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Hawaii case that found the travel ban “a legitimate grounding in national security concerns."

The Justice Department argues the high court's ruling effectively puts an end to the legal challenges. In a 5-4 ruling, a sharply divided Supreme Court found that the travel ban was within the considerable authority U.S. presidents have over immigration and their responsibility for keeping the nation safe. The court rejected claims that the policy was rooted in anti-Muslim bias based in large part on Trump's own tweets and public statements, including his call during the presidential campaign for “a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

President Trump is, of course, right about the security concerns posed by immigrants from the targeted countries, but there’s another issue as well – that of welfare dependency.

Immigrants are supposed to be self-sufficient when they arrive or have a sponsor who will support them.  However, a March 2016 government report from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) showed that vast numbers of Middle Eastern and African refugees in the United States are on welfare.

A whopping 39.2 percent of refugees from the Middle East receive TANF—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—cash benefits. A similarly high percentage of refugees from Africa—18.9 percent—are on TANF benefits, the chart on page 107 of the 112-page report shows.

TANF is basically a program through which the federal government—using state governments, through block granting—puts cash right in the pockets of its beneficiaries.

A whopping 35.5 percent of refugees from the Middle East and 13.2 percent from Africa are also on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a program that provides monthly stipend checks to those with disabilities. Also, 20.3 percent from the Middle East—and 6.6 percent from Africa—are on a similar program called General Assistance.

An astounding 89.7 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on SNAP Assistance—or food stamps—while 80.3 percent of refugees from Africa similarly benefit from the program. Medicaid numbers show similar results: The ORR chart found that 76.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees, and 75.2 percent from Africa, are on Medicaid, reported our friend Mathew Boyle of Breitbart.

The groups suing the Trump administration say the 4th Circuit is not being asked to decide the merits of the legal challenges. They say they are only asking the appeals court to find — as U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang did — that their lawsuits can move forward to the discovery phase, when they will seek records from the Trump administration on the origins of the ban and how it has been enforced over the last three years.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said that while the Muslim groups can legitimately argue that the Supreme Court did not require outright dismissal of their legal challenges, the high court's ruling did put a significant crimp in their arguments.

“It strikes me as willful blindness to pretend the opinion did not substantially undermine these cases,” he said. “It's very difficult to read the Supreme Court opinion and not see considerable support for the arguments of the administration."

Once again, we are seeing Democrat federal district judges try to impose their own “progressive” policy preferences on the President, Congress and in this case the Supreme Court as well. At some point there must be consequences for this judicial meddling in national security matters and disregard for the plain language of the laws Congress passes, but don’t look for impeachment to be an option. House Democrats are too busy making up a case against President Trump to look at real impeachable offenses by liberal district court judges.

Share this