Federal Judge Block Trump From Allowing States to Deny Refugees

White House [Public Domain]

A federal judge has stopped an order from President Trump that allowed state and local governments the right to refuse acceptance of refugees.

According to The Hill:

A federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked an executive order signed by President Trump that would allow state and local governments to refuse to accept refugees.
Judge Peter J. Messitte of the Maryland District Court granted a motion from refugee groups to temporarily stay the order while their legal challenge against the president plays out.
“By giving States and Local Governments the power to veto where refugees may be resettled — in the face of clear statutory text and structure, purpose, Congressional intent, executive practice, judicial holdings, and Constitutional doctrine to the contrary — Order 13888 does not appear to serve the overall public interest,” Messitte, who was appointed by former President Clinton, wrote in his opinion.
“Granting the preliminary inductive relief Plaintiffs seek does,” he continued. “Refugee resettlement activity should go forward as it developed for the almost 40 years before Executive Order 13888 was announced.”
The judge stated that the order could deprive refugees of their best chance to build a new life.
SHARE THIS WITH YOUR FRIENDS:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hal
Hal
2 years ago

That figures! Another Liberal Federal judge prevents local citizens control of their own neighborhood even though they pay taxes to support the area. More OWO at work.

Katherine Mary Hall
Katherine Mary Hall
2 years ago
Reply to  Hal

Hal, we have definitely been living with “taxation without representation”. It appears our government has no CLUE that they are to represent us. And the idea that the people making the money and paying the taxes could have any input on how that money is spent in their localities? I can’t even imagine the last time that even happened. It is absolutely shameful and disgraceful. We taxpayers are being used to fund every last pork project and earmark proposed by lobbyists while the corrupt politicians enter Congress with nothing and become instant millionaires. We should be able to audit THEIR tax forms! Why are they so above the law of We, the People? It’s just sickening.

Rick
Rick
2 years ago

A more representative headline would be Federal judge blokes states from refusing refugees, Endangering refugees lives ! we DO NOT have to accept and Subsidize these folks, we do not have to accept the Dregs of somebody else’s country, we do NOT have to pay for these folks to move here !

Katherine Mary Hall
Katherine Mary Hall
2 years ago

Peter Jo Messitte — Appointed by the evil Bill Clinton and made Senior Judge on September 1, 2008. Just think of THAT coincidence! One of the most dangerous threats facing We, the People are these activists, posing as judges in black robes, and bought and sold DA’s and prosecutors. Messitte is also 78 and time to get off the bench, especially because he doesn’t believe justice is blind. It surely is blind to the corrupt democrats but always has one eye out for the smallest indiscretion of a conservative. There definitely is one justice system: the “JustUs”, meaning democrats and “elites”.

rj
rj
2 years ago

I have an ideal lets transport these folks all to the judges town

Gerry
Gerry
2 years ago

F*** this judge and all his stupidity. States should make their own decision regardless of some lunatic activist libtard so-called judge’s ruling. These dirtbags want every state to end up just like Mighican and Minnesota — schittbird muslim terrorists getting voted into our congress — thanks to the scumbag obama.

Djea3
Djea3
2 years ago

I call Bull SHIT on this one. The fact is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no JURIS over a state to tell it where anyone can or can not live. IT is that SIMPLE. As a matter of fact I am beginning to think that SEVERAL states need deportation laws. In other words….if someone is even a US citizen and is considered undesirable by their actions the state should be able to send them away, banishment it used to be called, but deportation FROM a state is LEGAL in my opinion. The Feds have already determined that the LOSS of RIGHTS due to State Law is Just. Therefore the loss of Right to Residency makes sense.
Think of it this way. A State could also DEPORT an illegal from its borders..banishment. This is legal as well under the laws that allow REVOCATION of any constitutional right.

Lea
Lea
2 years ago

Since when does a judge SIDE WITH refugees? Enough is enough now! They do NOT have the right to shut down an Executive Order written by the President. It’s not bad enough we already have IS IS in 7 states already!! How much Crap are they allowed to get away with, and how much do Americans and Legals have to take??

RANDALL CRAIG
RANDALL CRAIG
2 years ago

I HOPE THIS JUDGE DIES A SLOW CANCEROUS DEATH !!!

ED
ED
2 years ago
Reply to  RANDALL CRAIG

ME TOO

Cheryl
Cheryl
2 years ago

Leftists like to use the “we are a nation of immigrants” red herring to justify flooding our country with 3rd world immigrants, 3rd world refugees & 3rd world illegals. When our forefathers came to settle this land they came LEGALLY & without safety nets. They were SCREENED for disease, mental & physical fitness & there was no GIANT, TAXPAYER FUNDED welfare state awaiting them. They came for the CHANCE to EARN a better way of life, not LEECH a better way of life from hard working, tax paying Americans. Therefore there can be no comparison between the legal immigration of the past & the open borders insanity of today.

ROSE
2 years ago

SINCE WHEN DOES A REFUGE HAS ANY RIGHTS IN AMERICA?MOST OF THEM HAS COME HERE FOR THE FREE HAND OUTS.AND HAVE A HOUSE FULL OF ANCHOR BABIES.////IT IS HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT THOUSANDS IS RELEASED IN AMERICA,EVER DAY.OUR BORDERS NEED TO BE CLOSED AND A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE NEED TO BE SENT BACK TO WHERE THE CAME FROM.

Ernest Lane
Ernest Lane
2 years ago

The President should have vetoed the order of the lower court, and in fact veto the orders of those rogue District Court judges that, in effect, make national policy — or that he just disagrees with. Now, the entire concept of finding laws unconstitutional is not in the Constitution but was just arrogated to itself by SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison. The President can veto a bill created by _elected_ Congress so why not a ruling by one or more _unelected_ judges? It makes sense to me as long as there is an override provision. Congress needs a 2/3 vote, so why not require a 2/3 vote (i.e. 6) of SCOTUS to override?

Ralph Chapman
Ralph Chapman
2 years ago

I have watched for decade the Judges, stop, change, enact laws, enact taxes. The three branches are supposed to be a check on each other. Exactly what part of the Constitution or law gave these gods this kind of power that has never be checked or given by any legal manner what so ever. This also cause judge shopping to block laws. They are only suppose to validate or unvalidate law, not make them up on their own.

14
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x