Immigration and the Courts: The Fight for Our Sovereignty, Security, and Society Ep 87

In this episode of the Conservative Conscience, Daniel blows up every myth of the Left about an affirmative right to immigrate and violate our national sovereignty.  Daniel goes through the history of immigration law and notes that it is at the core of our foundation that a sovereign nation can exclude anyone for any reason or place any conditions on those here who have not yet become citizens. Daniel takes conservatives to task for cowering in the face of mob rule.  If we have come to a point where we can’t even temporarily suspend immigration from a place like Somalia during a time of out of control terrorism, then we are destined to become Europe.   Moreover, the courts are setting a terrible precedent by violating 200 years of the most settled case law – that the political branches of government have full authority over immigration.  Courts have absolutely no jurisdiction and aliens who are not on our soil (airports don’t count) have no right to judicial review.  If we don’t rein in the courts, they will prevent us from dealing with illegal immigrants as well.   Key Quotes: “It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 US 651 (1892). [“the right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 US 707 (1893). What better authority on this subject than Justice Robert Jackson, the famous Nuremberg prosecutor who was a champion of due process rights (he wrote the dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the Japanese internment case) and regarded as one of the greatest writers of his time? Here is what he had to say: “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.” Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 US 222-223 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting). Show Links: Separating fact from fake news on Trump’s executive order Just 14 years ago, Democrats supported cutting off visas from terror-supporting nations Importing the values of the Middle East Boundless Somali immigration poses existential threat Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices