The Law Makes It Crystal Clear That Trump Has Authority To Suspend Immigration. Here's The Proof...

President Trump Speaks At A Meeting Of Police Chiefs And Sheriffs
Chris Kleponis-Pool/Getty Images
 IJR Opinion is an opinion platform and any opinions or information put forth by contributors are exclusive to them and do not represent the views of IJR.

The 9th Circuit Court is about to make a ruling on whether President Trump's “travel ban” executive order should be temporarily blocked while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality plays out in court.

The Trump administration, though standing on sound legal ground, shouldn't be too optimistic. Of the three judges who heard the case, two were appointed by Democrats, and the 9th Circuit is one of the most liberal courts in the nation.

A ruling halting the executive order in its entirety, effectively signaling their belief that the order is likely unconstitutional, would no doubt cheer Democrats and immigration advocates.

But both Congress and the Supreme Court have made it abundantly clear that the authority to control entry of aliens into the United States lies with the executive branch. Such a decision would then pose a terrifying question: who exactly has authority over our nation's borders?

That would make a real constitutional crisis - and one with severe national security implications.

Congress has gone to great lengths to make it resoundingly obviously clear that they have delegated the power to “suspend the entry of aliens” to the executive branch. They even wrote it into law:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period 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 Supreme Court, in Knauff v. Shaughnessy, went even further, writing that the power to exclude aliens is inherent to the president's constitutional authority to lead the nation's foreign affairs:

The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.

Both the legislative and judicial branch have made their intentions clear. A sudden declaration from the 9th Circuit that the president cannot suspend the entry of foreigners into the United States would be a stunning reversal of decades of jurisprudence - and would make it extremely unclear who holds the power to control our borders.

It's a scary thought with potentially dangerous implications. In an attempt to get around the clear statutory authority, the lawsuit argues that Trump cannot necessarily ban aliens from an entire country. Yet as attorneys defending the executive order argued, if the court buys into that logic:

The State’s assertion...would mean that the President would be statutorily disabled from barring the entry of nationals of a country with which the United States was at war—a result that would raise serious constitutional questions...

This ruling may come down to a more narrow complaint that the president cannot deny entry to the United States from travelers who already carry valid visas. Yet Congress has made it clear - again - that holding a visa does not give an alien the right to enter the United States:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to entitle any alien, to whom a visa or other documentation has been issued, to be admitted [1] the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law.

Congress even gave the the executive branch the power to revoke visas at his discretion:

After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation.

Opponents can attack the policy on its merits, but the law cannot be more clear about who holds the power to suspend travel into the United States - both the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch agree its held by the president. If the 9th Circuit arbitrarily rules that the executive branch does not hold that power, then who does?

That would be a real constitutional crisis - and one that the courts, not Trump, started.

View Comments(11 comments)
Kelli Mason Hill(14 likes)I am having a difficult time understanding how all these lawsuits and judges are blocking this whole immigration issue. The President clearly is within the guidelines of the law to stop whomever he deems a threat to our society. Yesterday's ruling was ridiculous. The judges stated that the banned countries posed no terroristic threat to the US. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Where have these judges been for the passed 16 years? This should NOT be a political issue. This IS a safety issue!!!! I realize there are emergent situations. BUT, Yemens own President stated very clearly that terrorists are holding a gun one day and posing as a refugee the next. Like with many rules/laws, they impose on the many for the actiins of a few. But that is just the way things have to be. Im ALL for keeping the United States the land of the free, but safety MUST come 1st!!!!!
William(14 likes)“The Rights of the Colonists,” in which Adams wrote: In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.... "ISLAM, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance. In fact, Jefferson himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. "A religion based on supremacism, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States."
Ricky Langford(2 likes)What I want to know is how did Carter get away with doing the same type of ban on Iran during the hostage situation, and predecessors since then have done the same thing. Why is this happening now, because Trump won and the Liberals are upset and hurt. Move the trial to D.C. Where it belongs,, not in California where we know the government and the politicians and now the judicial system is corrupt.