President Donald Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller made his Sunday-morning debut over the weekend, and he certainly had a memorable outing.
On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, he ripped the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision over the president’s immigration and refugee executive orders. Shortly after Miller correctly pointed out that one federal judge does not have the authority to single-handedly strike down the orders, a liberal meltdown ensued.
[W]e have equal branches of government in this country. The judiciary is not supreme. A district judge in Seattle cannot force the President of the United States to change their laws and our constitution because of their own personal views.
The president has the power under the INA, [8 U.S. Code § 1182(f)], to suspend the entry of aliens when it’s in the national interest. He has that same power under an Article II (of the U.S. Constitution) power to conduct to the foreign affairs of our country. And we will do whatever we need to do, consistent with the law, to keep this country safe.
The reality is, is that this is not a disagreement about the law and the Constitution. There is no constitutional right for a citizen in a foreign country who has no status in America to demand entry into our country. Such a right cannot exist; such a right will never exist. This is an ideological disagreement between those who believe we should have borders and should have controls, and those who believe there should be no borders and no controls. That’s the essence of this debate, and the bottom line is the president’s power in this area of represent the apex of executive authority. And we have multiple tools across multiple fronts to ensure that we are preventing terrorists’ infiltration of our country, and to ensure that those who enter our country share our values and support our people, something that is supported overwhelmingly by the vast majority of the American public.
After Stephanopoulos suggested Miller was trying to “question the legitimacy” of the appeals court, the president’s adviser quickly shut him down:
I’m calling into the question the accuracy of the ruling. For instance, the district judge in Seattle said there was no indication of terrorism from these seven countries in our country. That is a factually false statement.
We know there’s at least several dozen, perhaps many more than that, cases of terrorism from these countries that have happened in the United States in terms of terroristic plots, terroristic activity, material support for terrorism, supporting terrorism overseas—all different kinds of terroristic activity that’s been interdicted in the United States tracing back to these seven countries. {eoa}
See an error in this article?
To contact us or to submit an article
