Statements On President Trump’s Executive Order On Immigration
In looking through the GeorgiaPol.com Hazmat Unit’s inbox, I see the following three statements from members of the Georgia congressional delegation. I’ll post others in the comments section as I receive them and am available to do so.
Senator David Perdue:
“We are at war with ISIS and our previous president refused to put a plan in place to deal with this threat. We know terrorist groups have identified our country’s refugee system as a weakness and have purposed to exploit this program to their advantage. The first responsibility of any American President is to protect American citizens. This temporary pause will allow DHS to ensure the vetting process is improved. America will always be a compassionate country, and President Trump is taking action to protect all of our citizens.”
This is a temporary suspension for 120-days to improve the refugee vetting process and 90-days on individuals coming from seven countries President Obama previously identified as national security concerns: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
9th District Congressman Doug Collins:
“Protecting the people of the United States remains the top priority of its leaders, and thoughtful vigilance on this front has made our nation a beacon of hope to people throughout the world. It is possible to welcome refugees to our country while maintaining robust national security measures, and it is time to restore balance to this relationship by evaluating our entry processes in light of credible threats to our citizens.
“The executive order allows re-entry to lawful permanent residents and does not represent a comprehensive ban on entry to people from certain countries. In this temporary measure, President Trump has given us the opportunity to get refugee policy right going forward.”
12th District Congressman Rick Allen:
“First and foremost we must protect our homeland— the executive order does that— and keeps Americans safe until the legislative branch can reform our visa process and the vetting of refugees. Last Congress the House passed a very similar piece of legislation, the American SAFE Act, which passed with bipartisan support and a veto-proof majority. I am hopeful that cases affecting travelers when the executive order was announced will be resolved soon.”
About Author
Charlie
Founder of GeorgiaPol.com; Now weekly columnist Very interested in Georgia and Georginas. Interest in politics is waning daily.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
DOJ has chosen not to defend.
It appears another Georgian, Acting AG Sally Yates, has weighed in as well:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/reports-obama-appointee-preventing-doj-from-defending-trump-visa-executive-order/
Me being the amateur psychologist that I am:
These protests aren’t some pre-planned, organized resistance against ‘anything’. These are people who are genuinely outraged about the extreme deviation from what we have known and expected for generations. Even if this isn’t “the hill you choose to die on” it at least serves as a warning that continuing to assault our national identity and sense of morality will not go unchallenged. Perhaps the protesters are united by Carl Jung’s “collective unconscious”, or even better, maybe Durkheim’s “collective conscious”; an understanding that there is a line in the sand and we are getting close to it.
Trump fires Yates. As he should have.
She actually resigned when she announced her refusal to fulfill her constitutional responsibilities. Dereliction of duty charges should be in play here. Good on Trump to get her out of the way.
There’s no such charge for “Dereliction of Duty” for a civilian, FFS. She swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President, whether the previous one or the petulant child who sends out insane press releases these days.
Well David, whatever the equivalent to dereliction within the govt employee world is fine, FFS. She got to play martyr, get some free pub instead of being a professional and just resigning. Typical lifetime bureaucrat mentality.
“She took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. While she may serve at the pleasure of the President, her duty is to the law, not to him. Historically, “I was just following orders” isn’t a good defense…” Spare me. One can almost see you cuing up Kate Smith singing “God Bless America.” I know I’m tearing up.
I’m glad you said that her duty is to the law because Trump issued a legal order, she threw her little fit, got her eight minutes of fame and then got fired. Insubordination will do that to you. Maybe those hundred senior Foreign Service Officers should just resign on principle if they also cannot support Trump..
Noway,
I’m interested in what you think of Sessions questioning of Yates during her confirmation hearing. Do you think he was implying she has an obligation to go against President Obama if he proposed something that she thought was unlawful or unconstitutional?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/sally-yates-jeff-sessions-video-2015-confirmation-hearing-2017-1?client=ms-android-google
Short answer: yes. However, Trump’s EO was not illegal, hence her heading for the unemployment line this am.
It’s not a Muslim ban. It’s a ban from countries who engage in terrorist acts. Sally was certainly within her rights. Bully for her. Will we be seeing her on new Gary Martin Hayes commercials now?
Noway, ACP is practicing his arguments.
Can you invoice for billable or deductible hours if the problem was over while beating on windows at the airport ?
(Retract snark if called to action as attorney posted below)
I’ll bite. On 9/11 there were 19 hijackers that attacked the United States. Here’s a breakdown of their nationalities:
15 – Saudi Arabia
2 – UAE
1 – Egypt
1 – Lebanon
All 4 countries aren’t on the “banned” list. I’ll let you make sense of that.
Yeah, that’s it…LOL!
Republican Representative Amash thinks the EO was unlawful and points out why here:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1303049969734406&id=173604349345646
An executive order is not the law. It’s being challenged in court and a stay has already been issued due to the extreme harm it did to people who ALREADY had visas and green cards. It would be easier to defend if it were not retroactive and if the president himself (and his backers) didn’t keep implying that the intent is to ban muslims. If the acting AG is saying she can’t defend it in court then I would think it is at least questionable as to its legality and constitutionality.
11 folks (lawful residents) were detained at the Atlanta airport in the DHS confusion and released Saturday after flying in from Iran.
This news interview with an attorney there put the problem on the steps of congress. I agree with her points, but the dragging on has to end. I think Trump was correct in “it stops now” and firing the acting AG.
The demonstrators should have been redirected to the capitol not disrupting air travelers.
http://gpbnews.org/post/what-immigration-refugee-orders-mean-georgia
Well, Obama couldn’t even last two weeks before beginning to criticize Trump. Why is is that former Repub presidents can go for years without comments but former Libs have to immediately weigh in? Reason: No class whatsoever.
Enough of holding your breath until your face turns blue. Enough passive aggressive behavior. McConnell should schedule full senate votes on all nominees who’ve already been questioned by the appropriate committees. Today.
Former DHS GC: Trump Immigration Order Is Constitutional
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202778015020/Former-DHS-GC-Trump-Immigration-Order-Is-Constitutional?kw=Former%20DHS%20GC:%20Trump%20Immigration%20Order%20Is%20Constitutional&et=editorial&bu=Daily%20Report&cn=20170131&src=EMC-Email&pt=Morning%20News