The European Refugee Crisis, How Trump Wants To Prevent It Here, And Why Our Courts Are Acting Both Wrongly and Dangerously

On Friday, President Trump tweeted about the rise in crime in the United Kingdom, possibly due to the spread of radical Islamic terror:

One problem: Trump is correct.

According to the Telegraph, London is now more dangerous than New York City. According to crime statistics, crime across the U.K. was up 13%, with much of it in London. Rape, robbery and violent offenses have surged dramatically. Figures like these have risen in many European countries, with Sweden becoming “Europe’s rape capital,” Germany’s steep rise in violent and political crimes, and Paris’s frequent terror attacks.

With that information, among much more, Trump, like most of us, drew an easy conclusion from a common denominator — the spread of radical Islam, especially through Europe’s ever-increasing number of Muslim refugees taken in per year.

In light of this, Trump, as a candidate, called in 2015 for a ban on refugees from terror-laden countries, and has, as president, done his best to implement these travel moratoriums. These were, and are, meant to be temporary, until we can get a proper vetting system in place in order to keep the country safe.

But the Left insists on getting in the way and will do whatever it takes to implement their agenda. When they can’t get their way at the ballot box, they go to the most left-wing courts and judges they can find, in order to get these judges to strike down Trump’s policies.

This is wrong and dangerous. According to the Constitution, the executive branch explicitly has plenary power over immigration policy. A judge, especially from the circuit courts (which are created by Congress, so they have an even lower than the three main branches of government), has no authority to rule that the president must take in more refugees. In addition, federal immigration policy is about protecting national sovereignty, a process which no court has the authority to take over.

As Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review notes, “Webster’s dictionary defines a sovereign nation as ‘free from external control.’ Now that courts have crowned themselves king over our sovereignty with the power to rewrite both statute and the Constitution, there is no limit to the conditions foreign nationals can place on this country.”

In other words, the courts, designed to be, at best, an EQUAL branch of government to the executive and legislative branches, have de facto raised themselves to the level of the highest authority, and whatever they say, goes.

Of course, the Left doesn’t care, but this precedent is extremely dangerous.

For example, in the 2015 Obamacare case, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts rewrote the statute of Obamacare, calling it a tax instead of a penalty, and now Obamacare is constitutional and “the law of the land.”

Similarly, the 2015 case Obergefell vs. Hodges, legalizing gay marriage, overturned decades of state sovereignty and made the issue into a federal one, just by the sound of a gavel. As a consequence, bakers and flower shops who don’t want to cater gay weddings on religious grounds have been sued into bankruptcy.

And, of course, there is the heinous Roe vs. Wade in 1973, which to date has killed more than 50 million unborn children, only because a court ruled abortion to be legal.

By this logic, the infamous Dred Scott ruling would have been fine. The case of Korematsu vs. United States, which concerned the constitutionality of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, would have been fine. Plessy vs. Ferguson, which enshrined segregation for over 60 years, would have been “the law of the land.”

The precedent of judges taking the law into their own hands has resulted in horrible consequences. And it will continue to do so if we don’t step in and reform the judiciary. Otherwise, the Left will continue to move the ball.

And who knows what the courts, through the Left, would do in the future? It is entirely plausible that they would try to nullify election results if they could.

In a way, they already have.

Follow Jeremy Frankel on Facebook, Twitter and subscribe to his YouTube channel.