A Harvard classmate of the ex- “president” and nominated to the court by the ex- “president,” Hawaii U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson was the one who ruled against President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on terrorist sponsoring nations. The ex- “president” reportedly made an unexpected trip to Honolulu two days before Watson ruled, causing widespread speculation of a backroom deal.

Watson’s ruling postulates that Hawaiian universities and tourism overrules security concerns. Pearl Harbor victims might have something to say about that. Watson also infers that Muslim clerics have the Constitutional right to bring anyone they want into the U.S., whether they have visas or not. But there is more.

Central to Watson’s ruling was consideration to the plaintiff, who claimed, discrimination to his family in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right among other things “to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin.”

The plaintiff is Dr. Ismail Elshikh, a local Hawaiian Imam whose mother is a Syrian national “without a visa, who last visited the family in Hawaii in 2005.” She would be barred from entering the US unless granted a waiver. Further, Watson said the state of Hawaii’s universities would “suffer monetary damages and intangible harms” and the state would lose revenue “due to a decline in tourism” because of the executive order.

Watson admitted that Trump’s executive order contains no express reference to any religion, nor does it “contain any term or phrase that can be reasonably characterized as having a religious origin or connotation.” But Watson says, “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

The judge also cited instances when candidate Trump said he would ban Muslims until they were fully vetted. So the judge included in his decision to issue a restraining order on the ban because Trump, before he was elected, referred to the action as a Muslim ban.

Watson contends by his statements that non-U.S. citizens living abroad have U.S. Constitutional rights. Overall, he ignored the law. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 specifically states in Section 212:

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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The Lord said in Luke 16:10, “…he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.”

Judge Watson has undermined the law and the Constitution. He should be removed from his position.

Bill Wilson
www.dailyjot.com

Court’s Justify Ignoring the Law in Ruling Against Immigration Order

In December 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump called “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Trump cited a Pew Research poll in his news release that indicated 25 percent of the U.S. Muslim population agreed that violence against Americans is justified.

Almost immediately, Trump drew criticism from Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, calling his remarks offensive, reprehensible, outlandish and divisive. These are the very remarks that are giving courts the upper hand in ruling that Trump’s immigration orders establish religious discrimination. In reality, Trump is in alignment with U.S. immigration law.

Chapter 2 Section 212 of The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Public Law 414), prohibits entry to the U.S. if an Alien is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the U.S. or of all forms of law, and Aliens who publish, circulate and distribute materials teaching or advocating the overthrow by force, violence or other unconstitutional means of the US Government or of all forms of law.

Islamic immigration to the U.S. would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam and Sharia law, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.

Whether Islam is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited. It also prohibits those who distribute literature that advocates the overthrow of our country, which would include the Koran. The Koran is not only Islam’s ‘holy” book, it is also Islam’s constitution.

It commands Islamists to conduct violence against or to kill those who do not submit to allah and the prophet—at least 109 times, in context. But Trump’s mistake was publicly using the term “Muslim” when he called for the visa shutdown. The courts are now using this against him, saying his intent constitutes religious discrimination.

During the campaign, Trump pointed out that Islam’s hatred for America is “beyond comprehension.” He stated, “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” Galatians 6:7 says, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.”

The ex- “president’s” crop is growing. When it reaches harvest, America will regret the day it succumbed to these false narratives and political correctness. Irrespective of what you think about Trump, he is absolutely in alignment with U.S. law and the right to self-defense on this issue.

Have a blessed and powerful day!

Bill Wilson
www.dailyjot.com