The Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR has filed a lawsuit challenging the executive order travel and immigration ban signed into effect by President Trump. As Gregg Jarrett explains, that seems to be little more than a frivolous harassment suit, one that will have no relevant impact for a variety of reasons.
Jarrett first points out that virtually all of the plaintiffs in the CAIR lawsuit are already ungrateful residents of the United States, the nation they are now attempting to force into actions to benefit them. He says, “I don’t think they have standing to sue and on that basis they could be kicked out. Remember, only if you have been actually harmed do you have standing to file a lawsuit.”
He says, “Here they’re just sort of speculating that, ‘Gee, we might in the future have difficulty renewing our immigration status.’ Again, that’s purely conjecture, no actual harm, so a judge who, by the way, is a political appointee by former President George W. Bush by the name of John Trenga, he may just decide to throw the case out for lack of standing.”
On the merits of the CAIR case, Jarrett points out that, “In the Constitution, Article One, Section 8, it clearly states that Congress has the power to regulate immigration and they gave that power’s enforcement to the president of the United States back in 1952. In a law they said the president can ban people from entering the country if it is detrimental to the interests of the US. That’s the specific language. And other presidents have done this. FDR, Truman, Carter, Obama have all issued blanket bans.”
He says, “And all of them, constitutionally challenged, have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as valid and not a violation of the Constitution. So history and the law is on the side of President Trump.”
Jarrett agrees with Neil Cavuto that if it were a Muslim ban it would have affected 46 countries rather than 7 as well as on the subject of timing. He notes that “Whether it be 90 days or 120 days, it is doubtful that this can be fully litigated and certainly not litigated on the constitutional merits of the latest lawsuit.”
He also points out that the injunctions and temporary restraining orders only dealt with the approximately 200 person who were in transit at the time of the ban being put into effect. Cavuto asks if an argument could be made that this current CAIR lawsuit is a preemptive strike against another situation such as occurred over the weekend. That’s unlikely in that it was the implementation that created the situation of having people in detention, now that it’s in effect nobody in the affected group is allowed to depart their airport of origin.
Jarrett addresses the legal issues of that question, saying, “Probably not, and here’s why. All of the people who thought they were coming to the United States, wanted to come to the United States, had sought applications, they were pending, even those that were granted and now have been revoked, most of those are not United States citizens. They don’t have Constitutional rights which are cited in this particular CAIR lawsuit. The first amendment religion and the fifth amendment equal protection. So they don’t have standing to sue on a Constitutional basis because they’re not citizens.”
There’s nothing to stop them from filing a harassment lawsuit directed at the American people and our President. They’ve got all of that oil money and, although nobody is killed, it’s still a form of terrorism and it sends a message that if you cross them they will respond in any means possible. They’re still being an irritation and attacking the American people. CAIR didn’t get their terrorist designations by getting along with people – especially those who were foolish enough to allow them into their midst.
Please like Rick on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/ and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar I’m also at Stop The Takeover, https://www.facebook.com/StopTheTakeover/ and please follow on Twitter @RickRWells.