Rep. Zoe Lofgren Tells Town Hall: ‘I’ll Do What I Can to Stop’ Trump

Less than two months into Donald Trump’s presidency, anxiety is running high in San Jose over a number of executive orders coming out of the White House. Immigration, in particular, was a topic on the minds of many who attended Sunday’s town hall hosted by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren.

The House rep for California’s 19th congressional district, which includes most of San Jose and South County, Lofgren spoke on Trump’s order to deport all undocumented immigrants, healthcare, the environment and the Electoral College. As a former immigration lawyer and the senior Democrat on the House  Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Lofgren opened up the public meeting by noting her opposition to Trump’s second attempt at a travel ban, after a federal judge blocked the initial order.

“The First Amendment says that you may not establish religion as government,” Lofgren said. “It’s clear from his comments and the comments of his assistants that what Mr. Trump was going to do was to bar Muslims from entering the Unites States, and that is an impermissible motivation that highly violates the establishment clause.”

The town hall had roughly 450 people show up to Mount Pleasant High School on San Jose’s East Side, a predominately Latino neighborhood.

“I think it’s important for our community to be represented,” said Mount Pleasant High School principal Martha Guerrero. “We’re a community of immigrants and it’s important, especially in the political climate that we’re living in, that our voices are heard.”

Guerrero thanked Lofgren for meeting with constituents, who often feel like their voices go unheard.

On the topic of immigration, Lofgren promised to do what she could to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a policy created by the Obama administration that protects qualifying undocumented immigrants from deportation. She also criticized Trump’s vow to build a wall on the country’s southern border, saying it would not only hurt relations with Mexico but also be funded at an excessive cost by taxpayers.

“I will do what I can to stop it,” Lofgren said.

Concerns were also expressed about the potential repeal of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Lofgren noted that the plan put forward by House Speaker Paul Ryan would have a “terrible impact on families.”

The congresswoman was also asked about climate change and the new administration’s opposition to science that is widely accepted by the global community. As a senior member on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lofgren has expressed exasperation with her colleagues and the Trump White House.

“People around the world are looking at us like ‘are they crazy?’” Lofgren said.

The congresswoman still expressed hope that policies could change.

“We’ve missed some opportunities, but we still have some chances,” she said. “We have a responsibility.”

One of the last questions presented to Lofgren asked if the congresswoman could get rid of the Electoral College, which put Trump in the White House despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 2.9 million votes.

“I got my voice, I got my vote and I’m going to use them both,” Lofgren said. “Never underestimate your power.”


  1. > … by noting her opposition to Trump’s second attempt at a travel ban, after his first order was ruled unconstitutional.

    I don’t believe this is true.

    The order was NOT ruled unconstitutional. The merits of the order were never addressed.

      • There’s also a way of doing things the way the “most transparent administration” has done in the past, namely in 2011 when Obama’s state department simply stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months which caused a public uproar and denouncements <<– wink wink.

        That's the Chicago way of doing things, not via some openly publicized executive order/schmorder that ends up being scrutinized seven ways till Sunday.

        ABC News: "As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show."

  2. > “It’s clear from his comments and the comments of his assistants that what Mr. Trump was going to do was to bar Muslims from entering the Unites States, and that is an impermissible motivation that highly violates the establishment clause.”

    So, in Lofgren’s concept of “rule of law”, courts are supposed to make judgements on the “motivation” for laws, rather than on what the law actually says, i.e. the explicit “letter of the law”.

    Laws by Democrats have good motives, and therefore must be obeyed; laws by Republicans have bad motives, and can be ignored. Seems to me that if we had more Republicans we would have more laws that we could ignore and therefore we would have more freedom.

    • 》”courts are supposed to make judgements on the motivation for laws …”

      Yes, actually. The Equal Protection clause addresses both discriminatory intent and disparate impact without discriminatory intent. Both are addressed in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

        • Show you what? A US Supreme Court case that authorizes (actually requires) courts to look for discriminatory intent? I’m guessing you’ll move the goalpost after I show you, but here it is:

          Washington v. Davis (1976) 426 U.S. 229.

          • “Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially-discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially-discriminatory purpose are valid, under the US Constitution.”

            By the way, Islam is not a “race”, it’s a political ideology: Shariah Law

            There was NO constitutional basis for a court to block President Trump’s travel ban. If the Washington judges tries to do it again, he will be impeached.

          • I believe you owe ‘SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE’ and apology, but I doubt you will.

  3. @ SJOB:
    Like I said, you’ll move the goalpost after I show you. Yes, Washington v. Davis says discriminatory effect is not enough — in other words, courts MUST look at whether there is discriminatory purpose. Remember? That’s what you were surprised about (your words — “So, in Lofgren’s concept of “rule of law”, courts are supposed to make judgements on the “motivation” for laws, rather than on what the law actually says, i.e. the explicit “letter of the law”). Yes, courts are supposed to make judgments on the motivation for laws. They are required to make those judgments. Also, yes Islam is not a race. It’s a religion. And religion is subject to constitutional protection. Look at cases like Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Gonzales v. O Centro, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
    I know, I know. You say Islam is a political ideology. Depending on what you mean by that, which religion is not a political ideology? And besides which, as far as Supreme Court jurisprudence is concerned (not or The National Review), you might have to, as you say, “show me” where Islam is considered by the Supremes to be not entitled to constitutional protection because it is a political ideology rather than a religion.

    • There are a couple of points that you miss here:

      1. The Constitution offers no ‘protections’ and guarantees no rights to non-citizens living outside the borders of the US.
      2. The judiciary has no jurisdiction to examine immigration policy. 1889 USSC decision Chae Chan PIng vs. the US.
      3. While Muslims are free to practice their religion within the borders of the US (within certain limitation), there is no obligation on the part of the US to allow anyone of any particular race creed etc into the US. Yes, this means the American people have no specific duty to allow Muslims into the US.
      4. The President DOES have a specific duty to see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed. Yes, this means immigration law. Yes, also, this means that portion of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 which specifically states that neither terrorists nor people who espouse totatlitarian ideologies are allowed into the United States. That Muslims might be the most affected by heightened screening for terrorists has everything to do with the fact that Muslims are, by far, the most prolific perpetrators of terrorism in the world. This fact is made clear by the 2015 Country Reports on terrorism (
      5. The Quran promulgates an ideology that is no less totalitarian than the Nazism to which beliefs the left are so fond of ascribing Donald Trump. to wit:

      What the Koran says about the virtues of committing violence in the name of Islam:
      Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”
      Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”
      What the Koran says about those who do not believe in Islam:
      Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”
      Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
      Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
      What the Koran says about Christians and Jews and people of other faiths:
      Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”
      Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
      What the Koran and other Islamic scriptures say about homosexuals:
      Quran (4:16) – “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone”
      Abu Dawud (4462) – The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.
      al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.”
      From :
      “In 2016, an educated imam in Tunisia explained that while it may seem harsh, there is not ambiguity about this in Islam:
      God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Quran”
      What the Koran says about womens’ equality:
      Quran (4:11) – (Inheritance) “The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females”
      Quran (2:223) – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…” (This means that a woman has the same value to a man as the land that he owns)
      And Quran (4:24) and Quran (33:50) establish that women may be taken as sex slaves outside of marriage
      Here again, is enlightening.
      So,explain to audiences at home exactly how it is bigoted to assert that we should be sure that we are not allowing into our country the kinds of people who would espouse and practice the kinds of bigotry and violence enshrined in the Koran and other Islamic religious texts?

      I’m pretty sure that Zoe Lofgren – and others on the left – style themselves to be advocates for women, gays, minorities, religious freedom, etc. So why is it so hard for them to wrap their minds around the notion that maybe we don’t want to allow into our nation the kinds of people who embrace or want to practice the kinds of beliefs espoused above. Maybe we don’t want to allow into our nation the kinds of people who target and shoot up gay clubs? Maybe we don’t want to allow into our nation the kinds of people who throw gays off buildings or behead them. Maybe we don’t want to allow into our nation the kind of people who think it’s OK to rape women if they’re not accompanied by their spouses? And maybe we don’t want to allow into our nation the kinds of people who will march through a resi

      • My post got cut off. Continuing: “…who will march through a residential neighborhood in Minnesota announcing that they are going to rape the women?”

        Yes, this happened in Minnesota. Yes, these kinds of things happen in France, Sweden, Germany, and elsewhere. But it shouldn’t, anywhere, because doing these things is reprehensible, horrific, immoral – even if you’re a Muslim.

    • > And besides which, as far as Supreme Court jurisprudence is concerned . . . you might have to, as you say, “show me” where Islam is considered by the Supremes to be not entitled to constitutional protection because it is a political ideology rather than a religion.

      I don’t know WHAT the Supreme Court thinks Islam is, and that’s what worries me.

      I know that proglodytes regularly claim “religious protection” for Islam as if it’s just another “spiritual philosophy” separated and isolated from civic and political matters like Christianity. But Islam is way MORE than a religion, it’s an ideology for civic government in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution. If Islam rejects Shariah Law is it still Islam? At some point, the practice of Islam in the United States equates to sedition and insurrection.

      My fear is that the Supreme Court will give too much credence to the New York Times and its wacky notions of Islam.

      • Who says Christianity is “separated and isolated from civic and political matters?” I recall one of your posts where you took comfort from the fact that Jeff Sessions is a “good Christian man.” Also, have you heard of the Spanish inquisition? Or more recent terrorists like Dylan Roof?

        • Downer:

          Unlike Islam, Christianity does not lay claim to being civil authority:

          “My kingdom is not of this world”.

          “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”

          I take it you’ve been accumulating your list of imperfect Christians for quite a while. Not many Christians will be shocked.

          What would be shocking is your list of imperfect progressives. You don’t have a list, do you.

          • Imperfection is part of the human condition, and imperfect people are everywhere. But before judging and condemning a whole group of people, I submit, quite humbly — “physician, heal thyself.” Put another way, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” See, I submit that the problem is not with entire religions but with the people interpreting and invoking them. Whether he was God or man, I revere Jesus. Being able to forgive your torturers as they are torturing you is, to put it mildly, the mark of extraordinary courage. But I do not revere how Salvi and Roeder have interpreted his teachings. And if you speak of laying claim to being civil authority, the Old Testament has much that qualifies as just that.

    • Calmherdowner,

      With your interpretation of the law Trump should be allowed to flood the country with white Nazi, Fascist, Cannibals,
      Headhunters, Zombies, and Werewolves. No religion test there.

      Rather apocalyptic don’t you think?

      • > With your interpretation of the law Trump should be allowed to flood the country with white Nazi, Fascist, ….

        More true than you probably realize. U.S. Code, Section 1182, 3 (E) classifies “Nazis” and collaborators as “inadmissible aliens”. (How did George Soros become a U.S. citizen?).

        Yet, Nazi’s were known to be big fans of “occultism”, arguably, a “religion”.

        So, the argument that says the government can’t exclude Muslims for religious reasons is also an argument for NOT excluding Nazi occultists.

        Calmherdown DOES want to flood the U.S. with Nazi’s.

      • Keep going guys. You may feel like high rollers on the internet, but you will keep losing in court.

          • My father always said Republican are stupid gentlemen that think everyone should play by the rules. Thats a good way to get your teeth kicked in, Democrats are not gentlemen, they are street thugs and do not play by the rules.
            Like my father Trump is also from New York and you’re about to see what happens to street thugs when the good guys throw away the rulebook.
            God Bless Them Both!

          • Ok tough guy, I’ll humor you. When the good guys throw away the rulebook, they become street thugs. What makes you think they’ll be better street thugs than the trained, practicing street thugs? Better genes? A new york state of mind? (For now, we’ll ignore the fact that your mid-day reverie makes no sense in a thousand other ways.)

          • Downer,
            It will make sense when you have no firefighters, no cops, no schools, and no money to pay hordes of bureaucrats
            and lots of non citizens to feed.

          • >> “no firefighters, no cops . . .”

            I get it, Atlas will shrug. Except where will they go? Galt’s Gulch? If not, we won’t just have non-citizens to feed. We’ll have unemployed cops and firefighters to feed as well. Unless they all get a job in Trump’s regime (Trump’s Gulch?). Oh wait, Trump is all about firing government workers, not hiring them.

            You forget, Ayn Rand was a complete idiot and bad writer who figured out a way to transfer her nerd girl fantasies and appreciation for rough sex into some cock-and-bull story that is marketed as high philosophy. Her only audience is 14 year old boys and far right nutjobs who think that the main character giving a speech 70 pages long makes for good reading. Narcissists who like to hear themselves talk think John Galt talking for 70 pages is interesting to readers. Because they imagine themselves as John Galt. I read it when I was 14 and was over it by about age 16.

            But I digress. Go ahead and throw your Atlas-Shrugged-style temper tantrum. Quit en masse and retire to Galt’s Gulch. I’m predicting the world will keep spinning just fine.

          • The normal reverence that the left has for the act of reading and for literature in general (as a branch of “the arts”) is suspended when it comes to Ayn Rand. The enmity they reserve for this author and her works is unparalleled and so universal among their ilk that it seems some group pathology must be at play.

  4. Can we cut to the chase here?

    There is no credible argument that our laws are not being violated; they are, tens of millions of times every day, by self-serving people who have no right to be here.

    But Lofgren says that’s A-OK. She approves of their lawbreaking. That means she takes the side of foreigners against American citizens. Is there any other way to parse what she’s saying? Who does she represent? Foreign scofflaws, or U.S. citizens and legal residents?

    President Trump is taking decisive action to uphold and enforce immigration laws that protect American citizens. That is the #1 reason he was elected, no? Most Americans are fed up with foreign scofflaws who presume that they’re entitled to just waltz into our country, and to hell with our legal system. Laws are for honest Americans, not for them.

    Lofgren is throwing the usual juvenile temper tantrum because the voters booted out her über-corrupt candidate. Truth be told, she doesn’t care about immigrants, she’s just grandstanding. If she cared about them she would have proposed a law to make it much easier on the citizens of other countries who want to emigrate here legally (and I don’t mean another fake ‘Amnesty’. American citizens have been lied to and double-crossed with that nonsense every time).

    There is an honest and ethical way to end this argument: Lofgren and her ilk could easily propose rescinding the immigration laws they disagree with. Simples.

    But we all know why Democrats refuse to take that high road: any such proposal would lose decisively. Then what would they have to grandstand about? Obeying the law?

  5. “Yes, courts are supposed to make judgments on the motivation for laws. They are required to make those judgments.” — CALMHERDOWN

    The problem with this argument lies within the definition of the word judgment, which, at the judicial level, requires an examination and careful consideration of the facts. The act of a judge issuing a ruling (which is simply an authoritative pronouncement) does not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of a valid decision-making process.

    Were a judge, let’s call him Judge Servile, to rule that a soul food restaurant owner had no right to exclude Ku Klux Klansmen from his establishment, taking note that those affected by the ban were all of one race and one religion and citing the legal prohibition against restaurants discriminating against race (white) and religion (Christian), how likely would it be that progressives would applaud the ruling and commend the judge for taking a righteous defense of the Constitution? Not very. Instead, what you’d witness would be progressives angrily questioning the judge’s motivations and fitness, acknowledging the owner’s reasoning, and screaming to high heaven that the ban couldn’t be race or religion-based, as half of the customers were white and almost all were Christian.

    It would matter not one iota to progressives had the evidence revealed that the restaurant owner had occasionally expressed his frustration with whites or had early in his life abandoned Christianity. What they would demand is for Judge Servile to be overruled and an appellate court examine and consider the facts of the matter (i.e. to acknowledge the restaurant owners real and justified fear of the klansmen and see the target of the ban distinct from race and religion). In short, they would expect the judgment of the restaurant owner’s motivations to be viewed objectively and relieved of the political biases or incompetence demonstrated by Judge Servile.

    There is a unique and pervasive form of terror in today’s world. It has brought to tragedy in America and additional attacks are expected. The terrorists are Muslims, but it is understood that not all Muslims are terrorists. As there is no valid method for determining whether an individual Muslim represents a threat, the president has a choice of three strategies to protect the nation. The first, close-off the country to all Muslim foreigners, something that would be highly effective but extremely unfair to the peaceful Muslim majority. The second, do nothing restrictive and essentially turn the decision-making process (the when and where of attacks on America) over to the terrorists themselves. This would be the cross-your-fingers and take-your-lumps approach. The third would be to do what the president is trying to do, which is to identify a distinctive factor that would provide a beneficial level of protection to America while at the same time reduce the level of unfairness to the peaceful Muslim majority. That factor is geopolitical, specifically the identified hotbeds of Islamic terrorism, and there has yet to be made a persuasive case against its potential for effectiveness.

    Progressives, motivated by their hatred of Donald Trump, have turned Judge Servile into a role model for progressive judges seeking stardom, and have turned making America more vulnerable to terrorism into a national movement. There is no honor in their efforts, only hatred.

    • A soul food restaurant is a private actor, not an arm of government. Read the actual constitution, not an imaginary one. Then read today’s ruling against the 2nd ban.

      • A link to the ruling would help.

        The Constitution is very clear. But some judges quibble, deflect, and parse the clear language of the Constitution, which states: “shall not be”—and they end up ruling: “shall be”.

        No wonder the country is off track. President Trump is the symptom of that derailing, not the cause.

      • Which Constitution? The one that protects the rights of the people of this country and was written in the 18th century or the imaginary one that protects foreigners outside the country, serves the political aims of progressives, and is rewritten on demand?

        For a judge to make a ruling based upon his or her interpretation of the president’s motives (a campaign statement about closing the border to all Muslims), and that interpretation is contradicted by the facts of the case (his act does not ban all Muslims), then the judge has abandoned his position as an objective arbiter and assumed the role of a psychiatrist, psychic, or political whore.

        By the way, when the government (a public school) denied certain local students (non-Hispanic whites) the right to display the American flag on their shirts while at the same time allowing other students (Hispanics) to display the Mexican flag on theirs, the courts, to the cheers of idiot progressives and racist Mexican-Americans, supported the school. I guess the judges involved in that case used their psychic powers to see motivations that trumped both the first and fourteenth amendments. Or maybe they just felt it was okay to screw the white kids.

      • As I have heard it, this latest ruling as was the last one, really had nothing to do with the law, or the executive order but insted went after Trump’s opinion before the election. The Hawaiian judges was ruling on the economy, all of which is absolute garbage.

        If this was Obama order nobody would have objected, or if they did he would have ignored the ruling.
        What’s the difference Republicans have some respect for the law, Democrats give it the finger.

        • > If this was Obama order nobody would have objected, or if they did he would have ignored the ruling.

          Alan Dershowitz made the point that, under Judge Watson’s ruling, the EXACT same executive order would have been deemed constitutional IF IT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY OBAMA.

          This is a clear instance of the difference between “rule of men” versus “rule of law”.

  6. Lighten held a town hall to tell us what we larewsdt know (that she like the rest of her caucus) has no leverage over POTUS and is basically paid a six figure salary to waive a sign at Trump while House Democrats get ignored?

    At least donate your salary for signs and posters?

  7. > Why is Sessions bothering to send someone to court then?


    Many, many people are awaiting the answer to your profound and insightful question.

    Perhaps it has something to do with “wire tapping” and blackmail.

    • Or perhaps it has something to do with Prez Donald Duck having his head up his a**. We may never know.

      To clarify, my question was — if the rule of law does not matter, why bother to fight things in court? I think Empty G may have come closer to answering that question than you did. Or maybe I’m just not privy to the tangled stratagems that Sessions is employing.

      • > I think Empty G may have come closer to answering that question than you did.


        I AGREE! Let me spell out Empty’s answer a bit more: The Republicans are the stupid party; and the Democrats are the corrupt party.

        The stupid party hasn’t noticed that the corrupt party doesn’t play by the rules.

  8. MTG sez — “Sounds like you’re off your meds”

    Slow clap, MT. That one’s a winner. You must have spent hours on it.

    • Actually I’ve been thinking you were off your meds for a while, but you really started hallucinating yesterday.
      Then again maybe it’s what you have been taking!

  9. Downer says:

    > And if you speak of laying claim to being civil authority, the Old Testament has much that qualifies as just that.

    MY OPINION IS . . . . REPEAT . . . . MY OPINION IS . . .

    The Old Testament is NOT Christianity.

    Since this clearly is in the domain of religious belief, no one can prove anyone wrong.

    I also think that their is a remarkable coincidence between the Old Testament and Paleolithic ethos (hunter/gathers) and the New Testament and Neolithic ethos (shepherds/farmers). The matter is under study.

    • Ok, defer to you on that. But my point is that it’s not what language can be found in some holy book. It’s what cultural conditions and poverty allow would-be leaders to energize and radicalize the masses in the name of some holy book for their own megalomaniacal goals. Holy books always can be interpreted in either moderate or extreme ways.

      • > It’s what cultural conditions and poverty allow would-be leaders to energize and radicalize the masses in the name of some holy book for their own megalomaniacal goals.

        You lost me here.

        I suspect you’re trying to blame Christianity for something or other here, but I have no idea what it is or why.

        FYI. I equate modern progressive ethos with paleolithic tribal ethos. They’re both centered on “tribalism” (identity politics} and “fairness”. Tribalism (modern and primitive) is ALWAYS organized around a strong shaman/medicine man/witch doctor who talks to the spirit world and knows all the answers. You might say that the Shaman is the tribal personality who “energize(s) and radicalize(s) the masses in the name of some holy [ideology] for their own megalomaniacal goals.” Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders. Barack Obama.

        • This is not about Christianity or progressives. I am saying “radical Islam” has more to do with poverty and a narrative that has succeeded in placing megalomaniacs in power than it does with Islam.

          • > I am saying “radical Islam” has more to do with poverty and a narrative that has succeeded in placing megalomaniacs in power than it does with Islam.

            If your point is that “radical Islam” is just an instance of primitive shamanic tribalism, then I agree with you one hundred percent.

            The roots of Islam are not trade or agriculture, but warfare. Mohammed was a warrior.

            Foraging and warfare are the dominant pursuits of paleolithic tribalists. And foraging is a subsistence lifestyle which social scientists equate with poverty.

      • Downer,
        You’re beginning to reflect our position, don’t you think Trump might impose extreme veting on Catholics
        from Catholic rich countries if the Pope was sending thousands of followers to kill Jews, Mormons, Protestants
        and Muslims? Poverty maybe a factor in the equation of revolution, but has little to do with the inquisition or current
        jehad. Convert or die, there is no negotiation or accommodation and as such cannot be welcomed into this country.

  10. CHD, unlike you, and, apparently Ms. Lofgren, I HAVE read the relevant portions of the Constitution, so I will lay it out for you:

    1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the legislature the power to establish a uniform law of naturalization.

    2. Section 212f of the Immigration and Naturalization Act states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

    3. Chan Chae Ping 1889 vs The United States affirmed that the setting of immigration policy and the enforcement thereof are plenary powers of the legislative and executive branches, respectively and NOT subject to judicial review.

    Therefore, any person, or class of persons can be excluded from entry to the United States for however long the President of the United States may deep appropriate. Note, there are NO exclusions for religion, race, or country of origin in the text of the INA. Note, also that the INA, elsewhere, requires that criminals, terrorists, those who support or are part of totalitarianism (Nazis, for instance) are particularly excluded from entry. This also would include foreign socialists, and, as I have argued in other posts, could be interpreted to exclude anyone who adheres to Sharia law, given its perspectives on women (that they are to be considered property, that they have half the value of a man), homosexuals (that they should be killed) Christians and Jews (that they are to be converted, killed, enslaved, or subject to a special tax, called a jizya) and the rest of the world (simply ‘convert to islam or be enslaved, or killed’).

    Of course, effective and comprehensive screening systems should be in place in order to meet the mandates of the INA’s exclusions. Sadly – and as President Trump has factually observed – the screening systems in place are ineffective and our border is entirely too porous to meet the requirements of the law as set out in the INA. Take the case of Alwan and Hammadi: known Iraqi terrorists who lied their way through our screening process and who were planning attacks on US soil. (
    Take, also, the examply of Kate Steinle’s murderer, a five-time deportee who found sanctuary in San Francisco. It would be one thing if these examples were outliers, but they are not. Between 2006 and 2013, illegal immigrants in Texas, for example, committed over 642,000 crimes.

    So, please, explain to me how, with these facts in mind, President Trump was wrong with his immigration/refugee ‘bans’ and how politicians like Ms. Lofgren and her ilk are correct.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *