#PresidentTrump's Alien Exclusion Order is Constitutional

At the Weekly Standard, "Alien Exclusion Order is Constitutional":

Over at National Review, Andrew McCarthy writes that President Trump's executive order instituting a temporary ban on entry into the United States for foreign nationals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen is statutorily and constitutionally sound:

Under the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly after its adoption, "the transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specifically submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly."

The rare exceptions Jefferson had in mind, obviously, were such matters as the approval of treaties, which Article II expressly vests in the Senate. There are also other textual bases for a congressional role in foreign affairs, such as Congress's power over international commerce, to declare war, and to establish the qualifications for the naturalization of citizens. That said, when Congress legislates in this realm, it must do so mindful of what the Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), famously described as "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress."

McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case argues that the 1965 immigration act prohibiting discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin does not make Trump's order illegal:

With that as background, let's consider the claimed conflict between the president's executive order and Congress's statute. Mr. Bier asserts that Trump may not suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of specific countries because the 1965 immigration act "banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin." And, indeed, a section of that act, now codified in Section 1152(a) of Title 8, U.S. Code, states that (with exceptions not here relevant) "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence" (emphasis added).

Even on its face, this provision is not as clearly in conflict with Trump's executive order as Bier suggests. As he correctly points out, the purpose of the anti-discrimination provision (signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965) was to end the racially and ethnically discriminatory "national origins" immigration practice that was skewed in favor of Western Europe. Trump's executive order, to the contrary, is in no way an effort to affect the racial or ethnic composition of the nation or its incoming immigrants. The directive is an effort to protect national security from a terrorist threat, which, as we shall see, Congress itself has found to have roots in specified Muslim-majority countries. Because of the national-security distinction between Trump's 2017 order and Congress's 1965 objective, it is not necessary to construe them as contradictory, and principles of constitutional interpretation counsel against doing so.

McCarthy also cites specific language in federal immigration law that specifically authorizes this kind of temporary restriction for national security purposes...

Keep reading.

Also at RCP.

Shock. Outrage. Resistance. Repeat.

Yep. That about sums things up.

It's going to be daily outrage and protests for the next four years.

What a time to be a leftist. Democrats will be hailing Trump for revitalizing their base, lol.

Via Katrina vanden Heuval, from the Washington Post, "Shock. Outrage. Resistance. Repeat. Is this the new normal in Trump’s America?":

Resistance & Reconstruction-- Shock. Outrage. Resistance. Repeat. Is this the new normal in Trump’s America? https://t.co/qOi9KBkyyv

— Katrina vandenHeuvel (@KatrinaNation) January 30, 2017

In Donald Trump’s America, there may be no more weekends — just an incessant cycle of shocks, of actions and reactions. For the second weekend in a row, Friday to Sunday was wall to wall with resistance and outrage.

On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order banning people from seven nations in the Middle East and Africa from entering the United States.

On Saturday, protesters began heading to the airports to welcome international travelers, some of whom were detained for hours without access to lawyers.

On Sunday, thousands pushed peacefully against the fences around the White House in protest of Trump’s order. The signs spelled out embarrassment and resolve — and a cheeky self-awareness that only Washington can muster.

“SHAME ON AMERICA.”

“DEATH TO FASCISM.”

“PROTEST IS THE NEW BRUNCH.”

Is this what we’re in for, even on weekends? Will every news alert force us to ask ourselves who we are or send us out into the streets in a spontaneous counterattack?

Yes. The left is all about perpetual outrage. Meanwhile, the rest of us go about our lives while the White House restores are sovereignty.

Sheesh.

(Still more.)

Donald Trump's Refugee Ban Sparks Global Leftist Crisis

Look, I'm not having a crisis. My wife and kids aren't having a crisis. If you're a regular taxpaying American citizen you're not having a crisis. You can come and go. It's leftists who're having a crisis. The cosmopolitan globetrotting left is in crisis as the Trump administration takes back control of our borders.

So, yeah, Charles Schumer, cry me a river, you freakin' dweeb.

I mean, c'mon, just look at the jihadist taking over LAX. We're about to knock off Mecca as the jihad capital, sheesh.

At LAT, "Confusion reigns at U.S. airports as protests of Trump executive order enter second day":

Yeah, confusion reigns: Can America remain a Christian nation, or will leftist Islamic supremacy take over? pic.twitter.com/A6LesjY0Ae

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 30, 2017

With protesters’ chants echoing through arrival halls and beyond, confusion prevailed Sunday at airports across the United States amid seemingly contradictory signals from the Trump administration over a hotly contested executive order blocking U.S. entry to refugees and nationals of seven Muslim-majority nations.

Even as the White House defended the directive’s rollout as a success, advocacy groups and administration officials remained locked on an apparent collision course. Since its signing on Friday, the measure has led to the detention of more than 100 people landing at airports across the country with valid entry documents.

About twice as many others were denied permission to board flights to the United States, according to lawyers representing a consortium of groups that won a temporary nationwide stay Saturday night against the deportation of anyone who had arrived with a valid visa.

On the ground, backlash to the ban grew. While major international airports were the locus of protests, thousands rallied in cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Boston.

Despite the air of gravity surrounding debate over the ban, the atmosphere at many airport rallies was raucous and cheerful. Whenever anyone was released from detention, he or she was greeted with cheers and applause from well-wishers.

At Los Angeles International Airport, thousands of protesters filled the lobby at the Tom Bradley International Terminal and spilled into the street outside, chanting, "Let them in!" and "Love, not hate, makes America great."

Jacob Kemper, a 35-year-old Army veteran who served two tours in Iraq, said he was infuriated to think soldiers he fought alongside might be denied entry to the country.

"I really don't care about religion, but I really hate oppression," he said, holding a sign that read, "I Fought Next To Muslims."

Shay Soltani, a network engineer, fled the Iranian revolution 40 years ago and still has family members in Iran. She joined Sunday’s protest in Los Angeles, she said, because she doesn't know if she will be able to see them again, thanks to Trump’s order.

"I am so hurt by this," she said. "He is against freedom of speech and the Constitution and everything I believe in as an American."

Groups including the American Civil Liberties Union said they would ultimately press to have Trump’s order overturned as unconstitutional.

In the meantime, the emergency stay issued by a federal judge in Brooklyn on Saturday represented an “absolute baseline” prohibiting the removal of any of those who were halted upon arrival, said Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

But it remained essentially the luck of the draw in terms of who was halted upon arrival, who was released after questioning, and who had access to legal counsel if detained, the lawyers said.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."



And at Theo's, "Cartoon Round Up..."

Cartoon Credit: Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – Sees Only Evil."

Trump Creates Chaos!

Heh.

I wonder if the chaos is the blow to the system more so than the promise-keeping itself, although the headline writer at USA Today isn't especially clear:

From Susan Page (who I like), "Analysis: Trump's start creates chaos by doing what he promised":

#PresidentTrump creates chaos by doing what he promised, keeping his promises! #MAGA https://t.co/iBfJQfMpoD via @SusanPage

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 29, 2017

WASHINGTON — New presidents typically start with a flurry of actions designed to demonstrate to supporters and opponents alike that they will deliver on their campaign promises, and that there is a new guy in charge.

But never in modern times — a phrase that Donald Trump has made familiar in his opening 10 days in the White House — has there been a whirlwind of action that has so disrupted the political order. President Trump has opened a breach with Mexico over building a wall, created chaos at U.S. airports by blocking immigrants from Muslim countries, moved to undercut the Affordable Care Act even before Congress formally resumes debate over repealing it and more.

In other words, after a campaign that upended political assumptions, Trump has grabbed the headlines and prompted protests in the streets and the courts by doing precisely what he said he would do if elected.

"We've been in office now for about seven or eight days, and we've done an incredible amount," White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation after deflecting questions on the orders to begin building a wall along the southern border and to temporarily block refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries. "I think that one thing people can say about President Trump is that he's following through on his promises, and I don't think people should be surprised that he's doing it. I'm kind of surprised that people are surprised that he's actually conducting himself exactly the way he said he would."

It has been a surprise to those who assumed candidate Trump had more of a combative attitude than a specific policy plan. That gave rise to the observation, first credited to Saleno Zito of The Atlantic, that Trump's supporters took him seriously but not literally, while journalists took him literally but not seriously.

What's also surprised many is the speed with which Trump has moved, in some cases reportedly without the traditional consultation with members of his Cabinet, leaders of Congress or even the government lawyers who customarily would review the language and legal basis for the executive orders and presidential memorandums he has signed with fanfare.

Of course, presidents who have taken over at times of crisis have acted in the past with far-reaching actions and left it to the future for the courts and the critics to sort out. Franklin Roosevelt, taking over during the depths of the Great Depression, on the day after being inaugurated in 1933 declared a bank holiday and called Congress into special session. When he took office in 1861, Abraham Lincoln was dealing with a nation being split by Southern secession.

This time, though, Trump isn't taking over at a time of war or economic calamity. He has in effect created his own sense of crisis, a situation he seems to find useful when it comes to dominating the debate and conducting negotiations.

And while FDR coined the idea of the "first 100 days" as a measure for decisive action, Trump seems to be speeding up even that timetable — akin to his mode of unprecedented and instantaneous presidential communication via the burst of 140-character tweets...

More.

The Democrats' Rise Is Far From Inevitable

Well, rising Democrats are more than far from inevitable the way things have been going this last week, with a collective leftist temper tantrum practically equal to an extinction level event, a Democrat Party extinction, lol.

From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg:

The Democrats' Rise Is Far From Inevitable, writes @asymmetricinfo https://t.co/EZzqhzrLUP

— Milena Rodban (@MilenaRodban) January 24, 2017

Why are the left's public demonstrations more impressive than its voter turnout? Because there are a whole lot of Democrats in the large population centers where such demonstrations are generally held. People can join a protest simply by getting on the subway; it's an easy show of force.

But there are a lot of small towns in America, and as Sean Trende and David Byler recently demonstrated, those small towns are redder than ever. Effectively, the Democratic coalition has self-gerrymandered into a small number of places where they can turn out an impressive number of feet on the ground, but not enough votes to win the House. Certainly not enough to win the Senate or the Electoral College, which both favor sparsely populated states and discount the increasingly dense parts of the nation.

The Senate map in 2018 is brutal for Democrats. If Democrats want to get their mojo back, they’re going to need to do more than get a small minority of voters to turn out for a march. They’re going to need to get back some of those rural votes.

To do that, they’re probably going to have to let go of the most soul-satisfying, brain-melting political theory of the last two decades: that Democrats are inevitably the Party of the Future, guaranteed ownership of the future by an emerging Democratic majority in minority-white America. This theory underlay a lot of Obama’s presidency, and Clinton’s campaign. With President Trump's inauguration on Friday, we saw the results.

Why was this such a bad theory? Let me count the ways...

Heh, that's the best.

Keep reading.

Faith Goldy: Hey Feminists, Straight Up, You're Getting Pranked by Islam (VIDEO)

She's a cool chick.

Funny.

At the Rebel:

Daily Beast Editor Christopher Dickey: 'We've Been Spared Fascism, Up Until Now...' (VIDEO)

They still don't get it.

Leftist elites don't get it, and they're going to flail themselves right into a second Trump administration until they do.

From Mark Finklestein, at Legal Insurrection, "Daily Beast editor: Non-Cosmopolitan Rural Voters For Trump are the ‘Real Problem’."

Dickey used to be at Newsweek, which oughta tell you something, lol.

A Clarifying Moment in American History

From Professor Eliot Cohen, at the Atlantic, "There should be nothing surprising about what the Donald Trump has done in his first week—but he had underestimated the resilience of Americans and their institutions":

I am not surprised by President Donald Trump’s antics this week. Not by the big splashy pronouncements such as announcing a wall that he would force Mexico to pay for, even as the Mexican foreign minister held talks with American officials in Washington. Not by the quiet, but no less dangerous bureaucratic orders, such as kicking the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff out of meetings of the Principals’ Committee, the senior foreign-policy decision-making group below the president, while inserting his chief ideologist, Steve Bannon, into them. Many conservative foreign-policy and national-security experts saw the dangers last spring and summer, which is why we signed letters denouncing not Trump’s policies but his temperament; not his program but his character.

We were right. And friends who urged us to tone it down, to make our peace with him, to stop saying as loudly as we could “this is abnormal,” to accommodate him, to show loyalty to the Republican Party, to think that he and his advisers could be tamed, were wrong. In an epic week beginning with a dark and divisive inaugural speech, extraordinary attacks on a free press, a visit to the CIA that dishonored a monument to anonymous heroes who paid the ultimate price, and now an attempt to ban selected groups of Muslims (including interpreters who served with our forces in Iraq and those with green cards, though not those from countries with Trump hotels, or from really indispensable states like Saudi Arabia), he has lived down to expectations.

Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character, it will not get better. It will get worse, as power intoxicates Trump and those around him. It will probably end in calamity—substantial domestic protest and violence, a breakdown of international economic relationships, the collapse of major alliances, or perhaps one or more new wars (even with China) on top of the ones we already have. It will not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment. The sooner Americans get used to these likelihoods, the better...

Interesting, and not all that disagreeable. And I find the talk of impeachment and exercising the 25th Amendment rather humorous.

Frankly, it's mostly humor that's the antidote to all the leftist hair-raising hysteria. Repeat after me: It's gonna be fine. It's all good. Take the day off from politics and you'll see that your life hasn't changed much at all.

Still more, at Memeorandum.

And don't forget Cohen's book, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power and the Necessity of Military Force.

'It's going to be a long and terrible four years...'

Ah, the nectar of leftist tears. I've gotta get me one of those cups!

On Twitter:

@littlekique, I'm just so angry. If the last ten days are any indication, it's going to be a long and terrible four years.

— Nick Kulmala (@NNNICKKK) January 28, 2017

These two are responding to a Facebook post from Clemson Professor Nazanin Zinouri, whining about being "deported" by the Trump administration. I mean, how stupid can you get? You fly to Iran to visit your mom when President Trump is in the midst of issuing a raft of executive orders. I guess leftists aren't used to a president that keeps his word.

Federal Judge Halts Part of President Trump's Immigration Order; Stops Deportation of Refugees (VIDEO)

Trump's going to win. Some of his executive order may be struck down, especially the ban on return entry for green card holders, but he's going to win. It's the executive's authority to implement immigration laws. We're in for big changes, and for all the hand-wringing, they will be far-reaching.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Federal judge blocks deportations under Trump's 'extreme vetting' order for refugees and others with valid visas":

After a day of chaos at airports around the world, a federal judge in Brooklyn on Saturday night stayed deportations under President Trump’s executive order barring citizens of some Muslim countries from entering the United States.

U.S. District Judge Ann M. Donnelly ordered a halt to any removal of refugees or others who hold valid visas to enter the United States — meaning those who have arrived at U.S. airports from the seven predominantly Muslim countries named under the president’s executive order can remain, for now.

The judge did not rule on the legality of the executive order, nor did she say that others who have not yet arrived in the U.S. can be allowed to proceed.

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two Iraqis detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York: Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who was an interpreter for the U.S. military, and Haider Alshawi, who was on his way to join his wife, who had worked for a U.S. contractor in Iraq.

ACLU attorneys argued that returning either petitioner could cause “irreparable harm” by exposing them and their families to retaliation from extremists.

The two lead plaintiffs were held by authorities and threatened with deportation, even though both “assert a fear of returning to their countries, and if they are not admitted pursuant to their valid entry documents, [they] seek an opportunity to pursue asylum,” the lawyers argued in the emergency petition.

“This ruling preserves the status quo and ensures that people who have been granted permission to be in this country are not illegally removed off U.S. soil," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case.

The executive order Trump signed Friday suspends all refugee entries for 120 days, blocks Syrian refugees indefinitely and bars for 90 days the entry of citizens from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.

While the court did not take on the legal merits of that action, the judge’s order said the Trump administration and its employees are  “enjoined and restrained from the commission of further acts of and misconduct in violation of the Constitution.”

“The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed under the United States Constitution,” the court ruled.

Surrounded by a throng of cheering demonstrators, who had rushed from Kennedy airport to the Brooklyn courthouse, an exultant Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said, ``This was a remarkable day. What we’ve shown today is that the courts can work. They are a bulwark in our democracy when President Trump enacts laws or executive order that are unconstitutional and illegal.’’

Keep reading.

Do You Want More Trump?

Here's Glenn Reynolds with a roundup on the leftist reaction to President Trump's executive order on refugees, at Instapundit, "Do you want more Trump? Because explosive anger mixed with sanctimony is how you get more Trump":

OBAMA DID A 6-MONTH IMMIGRATION PAUSE ON IRAQ, NOBODY CARED. TRUMP DOES A 3-MONTH PAUSE ON A LIST OF COUNTRIES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT TOGETHER AND HE’S LITERALLY HITLER. The Green Card thing is genuinely horrible, but that’s not even what people are going apeshit about.

And Trump’s fine with that, because it will play badly, and he knows it.

Click through for the tweet roundup.

Refugees Detained at U.S. Airports, Prompting Legal Challenges to Trump's Immigration Order

I'm surprised green card holders are being detained, since they have a legal right to be here. (See Glenn Reynolds on that, "WELL, THIS IS STUPID: DHS Spox: Trump Muslim Ban Includes Green Card Holders.")

Honestly, though, I'm not all shaken up by this. See the long stream of articles at Memeorandum, including the New York Times.

And from Matt Pearce, via Twitter, linking the L.A. Times, "Confusion and consternation as new 'extreme vetting' policy blocks travel from several Muslim-majority countries":

Read this. What a massive story, with wide-ranging consequences that cross industries and touch thousands of lives. https://t.co/lPmhevijjr

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) January 29, 2017

President Trump’s executive order suspending refugee arrivals and banning travel to the United States from several Muslim-majority countries spawned chaos and consternation across the globe Saturday, igniting legal challenges, trapping unwitting airline passengers and galvanizing anguished questions about core American values.

The abrupt ban ensnared people from all walks of life who were caught in transit or expecting to soon return to the U.S. — not only refugees but students on a break from studies, business travelers, tourists, concert musicians, even the bereaved who had gone home for funerals.

A group of advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a legal action against the policy on Saturday in New York, acting on behalf of two Iraqis who were stopped at John F. Kennedy Airport hours after the order was signed. The writ seeks the release of the two Iraqis, who held valid U.S. visas, unless the government can show lawful grounds for their detention.

One of the two detained Iraqis, Hameed Khalid Darwish, was an interpreter who had worked on behalf of the American government. Freed after 19 hours in custody, he wept as he spoke to reporters, thanking supporters and calling America “the land of freedom, the land of rights.”

The groups bringing the legal action, who also included the International Refugee Assistance Project and the National Immigration Law Center, said a separate motion sets the stage for a larger action involving other would-be refugees, visitors and immigrants stopped at other ports of entry.

“We’ll see you in court, Mr. Trump,” tweeted the ACLU’s national legal director, David Cole, after the writ was filed.

Arab American advocacy groups also were reacting to the new order, warning that it was disrupting travel all over the world.

“We see complete chaos in the way this has been implemented. … Individuals overseas have not been able to board airplanes and fly back into the United States,” Abed A. Ayoub, legal and policy director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said in a conference call with reporters Saturday morning.

This is tearing apart families. We have students overseas stuck there who can’t get back. We have students abroad who cannot return here at all,” he said.

Another legal challenge was in the works as well. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, said it would file a federal lawsuit on behalf of more than 20 individuals challenging the order. The suit, to be filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Virginia, argues that the executive order is unconstitutional because of its apparent aim of singling out Muslims.

“There is no evidence that refugees — the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation — are a threat to national security,” the group’s national litigation director, Lena F. Masri, said in a statement. “This is an order that is based on bigotry, not reality.”

The order, signed Friday by the president during a visit to the Pentagon, suspends all refugee entries for 120 days. In addition, it indefinitely blocks Syrian refugees, and bars entry to the U.S. for 90 days for those traveling from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Prominent Muslim figures raised their voices in opposition to the temporary refugee ban, saying children would be among those suffering the most from it. Nobel peace laureate Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban, said in a statement that she was “heartbroken” that Trump was closing the door on “children, mothers and fathers fleeing violence and war.”

On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said the travel ban covered holders of green cards, who are authorized to live and work in the U.S. Some reports have put the number of such permanent residents from the affected countries as high as half a million.

An administration official eventually said that current green card holders from the affected countries would be allowed to remain in the U.S. — but that those caught outside the country at the time of the ban’s imposition would have be allowed back in on a case-by-case basis. Those with business overseas will have to meet beforehand with a consular official.

Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway took to Twitter on Saturday to praise the directive, calling the president “a man of action and impact.”

“Promises made, promises kept,” she tweeted. “Shock to the system. And he’s just getting started.”

Get used to it. @POTUS is a man of action and impact.
Promises made, promises kept.
Shock to the system.
And he's just getting started https://t.co/AoUsZWClXt

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) January 28, 2017

Extreme Vetting (VIDEO)

Following-up, "President Trump Issues Executive Order Calling for 120-Day Pause on Refugee Admissions."

Here's Margaret Brennan, for CBS Evening News:

President Trump Issues Executive Order Calling for 120-Day Pause on Refugee Admissions

Trump's doing what Americans elected to do, and terror-coddling open-borders leftists are up in arms.

I'm loving it.

Oh, and not to forget, the U.S. will now give preference to Christians in the refugee program, and that's what you call sticking up for American values.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Trump signs order to temporarily shut nation's door to most refugees and start 'extreme vetting'":

Trump temporarily shuts U.S.'s door to most of the world's refugees and start "extreme vetting" https://t.co/MMpo3a5xKe pic.twitter.com/gbGD9jGLlt

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) January 27, 2017

Read the full text of Trump's executive order regarding visas, refugees and "extreme vetting": https://t.co/5B6PkVzYRw pic.twitter.com/GowoK2Xx9Z

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) January 28, 2017

President Trump signed an executive order Friday that temporarily halts the nation’s refugee program and ushers in the most sweeping changes in more than 40 years to how the U.S. welcomes the world’s most vulnerable people.

The order blocks all refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days and suspends the acceptance of refugees from war-torn Syria indefinitely.

“We want to ensure that we are not letting into our country the very threats that our soldiers are fighting overseas,” Trump said after swearing in new Defense Secretary James N. Mattis at the Pentagon.

Trump also blocked visa applicants entirely from a list of countries that the administration considers of major terrorism concern, including Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, until a new “extreme vetting” procedure for visa applicants can be launched.

The action capped Trump’s frenetic first week in the White House, as well as a busy day that included his first meeting with a foreign leader, British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Trump also spoke by phone for about an hour with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, attempting to soothe what has already become a tense relationship. And he swore in Mattis and signed a second directive that instructs the Pentagon to draw up a list of plans to upgrade equipment and improve training.

The U.S. has admitted more than 3.3 million refugees since 1975, including more than 80,000 refugees in the last year. Under Trump’s plan, those numbers will plummet to a trickle for the next several months. For the full fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, the order sets a cap of 50,000 refugees.

The order provides an exception for “religious minorities,” a category that could include Christians fleeing largely Muslim countries as well as other groups including Yazidis and Bahais that face persecution in the Mideast.

Trump said in an interview Friday with the Christian Broadcasting Network that the order will help Christians fleeing Syria enter the United States.

The order also expands the ability of local jurisdictions to block the settlement of refugees they object to. During the Obama administration, the federal government stopped efforts by some local officials to block refugee resettlements.

Trump’s action, seen as part of his campaign pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country, sparked an international outcry, given the historic role that the U.S. and other industrialized nations have long played in embracing victims of war and oppression. The last major change in U.S. refugee policy came during the Vietnamese resettlement programs of the mid-1970s.

In recent months, Trump has backed away from a blanket ban on Muslims and instead says he will focus on blocking people from countries linked to terrorism...

More.

What Donald Trump's Wall Says to the World (VIDEO)

From Patrick Buchanan, at Real Clear Politics, "What Trump's Wall Says to the World":

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall," wrote poet Robert Frost in the opening line of "Mending Walls."

And on the American left there is something like revulsion at the idea of the "beautiful wall" President Trump intends to build along the 1,900-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico.

The opposition's arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality. The wall is unnecessary. It will not stop people from coming illegally. It costs too much.

Yet something deeper is afoot here. The idea of a permanent barrier between our countries goes to the heart of the divide between our two Americas on the most fundamental of questions.

Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for?

Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported, see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place.

It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are...

Keep reading.

The National Elite Nervous Breakdown

From JPod, at Commentary:

The National Elite Nervous Breakdown - by @jpodhoretz https://t.co/oytEkuaWcL pic.twitter.com/sxjdhmkzxI

— Commentary Magazine (@Commentary) January 26, 2017

It cannot go on like this. It’s been five days since the inaugural and the adrenalized, hypercaffeinated, speed-freak affect of the entire chattering class is beginning to seem like we’re living through Bob Woodward’s classic depiction in his book Wired of John Belushi’s final overcharged sleepless days before dying from a cocaine speedball overdose in 1981.

If every word out of Donald Trump’s mouth is greeted with shrieks of horror and rage and anger and despair and hysteria by his opponents, they are going to find it impossible to serve as any kind of effective opposition to him. If media spends their hours celebrating each other for the most creative or the most direct way in which to call Trump a liar, they are going to take their (our) taste for self-referential solipsism to a new level at which their capacity to communicate with their own readers and viewers will be fatally compromised. And just at the moment when they could find new audiences and new credibility in serving as an authoritative source of information in a sea of White House spin and outright disinformation.

This is where the follow-through on Saturday’s “women’s marches” will tell the tale. It would be a terrible mistake for conservatives, Republicans, and Trump supporters to pooh-pooh this mass event, which happened simultaneously in several cities and towns, with a gross turnout dwarfing any mass protest in American history. Dismissing three million people taking to the streets nationwide would be an act of willful blindness, and ascribing the march’s success to Soros money would be foolish.

Similarly, it would be wrong to assume those crowds even heard a single word of Madonna’s curses or cared one whit about the fight between the “check your privilege” activists and the offended/cowed Brooklynite feminists over whose march it was. It was no one’s march. It was everyone’s march. And it worked, I believe, for one reason: It had a simple message. That message: We don’t like Trump and his behavior toward women...

Actually, I'm totally impressed.

But it's still almost four years until the country votes again for the presidency. A lot can happen in that time, but if the left keeps up with mass protests, they could have a big effect on public opinion, especially with a hate-addled, Democrat-compliant mass media.

But keep reading.

America's Second Civil War

From Dennis Prager (I love Dennis Prager), at RealClearPolitics (via Stephen Green, at Instapundit):

It is time for our society to acknowledge a sad truth: America is currently fighting its second Civil War.

In fact, with the obvious and enormous exception of attitudes toward slavery, Americans are more divided morally, ideologically and politically today than they were during the Civil War. For that reason, just as the Great War came to be known as World War I once there was World War II, the Civil War will become known as the First Civil War when more Americans come to regard the current battle as the Second Civil War.

This Second Civil War, fortunately, differs in another critically important way: It has thus far been largely nonviolent. But given increasing left-wing violence, such as riots, the taking over of college presidents' offices and the illegal occupation of state capitols, nonviolence is not guaranteed to be a permanent characteristic of the Second Civil War.

There are those on both the left and right who call for American unity. But these calls are either naive or disingenuous. Unity was possible between the right and liberals, but not between the right and the left.

Liberalism -- which was anti-left, pro-American and deeply committed to the Judeo-Christian foundations of America; and which regarded the melting pot as the American ideal, fought for free speech for its opponents, regarded Western civilization as the greatest moral and artistic human achievement and viewed the celebration of racial identity as racism -- is now affirmed almost exclusively on the right and among a handful of people who don't call themselves conservative.

The left, however, is opposed to every one of those core principles of liberalism.

Like the left in every other country, the left in America essentially sees America as a racist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, warmongering, money-worshipping, moronically religious nation.

Just as in Western Europe, the left in America seeks to erase America's Judeo-Christian foundations. The melting pot is regarded as nothing more than an anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic meme. The left suppresses free speech wherever possible for those who oppose it, labeling all non-left speech "hate speech." To cite only one example, if you think Shakespeare is the greatest playwright or Bach is the greatest composer, you are a proponent of dead white European males and therefore racist.

Without any important value held in common, how can there be unity between left and non-left? Obviously, there cannot...

Keep reading.

It's TNAC, "The New American Civil War," which I've been arguing for a while now.

President Trump's Executive Actions Bring Progressives Back to Earth

This is great.

At Roll Call:

Unless progressives can turn mass Trump outrage into real pressure and power, they're in for a long 4 years https://t.co/epaJk4hrVe pic.twitter.com/lx8uLNwtqO

— Roll Call (@rollcall) January 24, 2017

President Donald Trump’s opponents spent inauguration weekend invigorated by their show of strength in Washington and around the country, but Trump brought them back down to earth Monday and Tuesday with a couple flicks of his pen on executive actions that struck against much of what they hold dear.

Trump signed executive actions Tuesday forcing the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines to go forward. Years of progressive organizing against Keystone on the grounds of environmental and climate concerns succeeded in getting former President Barack Obama to cancel it in 2015.

A ferocious direct action campaign by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe attempted to physically block the pipeline from being built on their land. In addition to concerns about the climate and the use of fossil fuels generally, activists aimed to prevent their water from being made unusable by oil spills. The Army Corps of Engineers refused permission to extend the pipeline in December, giving activists hope that the fight was won.

Now those victories appear to have been temporary...

White House Press Room Seating Chart

The Associated Press always gets front and center, although this year the organization was dissed on getting the first question, a first.

At Politico, "The White House press room seating chart."

As far as I can tell, this WH briefing room seating chart still stands for those wondering who is being called on https://t.co/PD8uZxNFy4

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) January 24, 2017