FEBRUARY 03, 2017
The Obama-appointed inspector general who looked the other way when his boss enacted illegal amnesty programs and ignored federal court injunctions blocking them has launched an investigation into President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. The political grandstanding is behavior unbecoming of a federal agency watchdog, which is charged with independently investigating wrongdoing and rooting out fraud, waste and abuse at 64 of the biggest and most important government agencies.
In this case the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) appears to be selectively investigating based on his ideology and perhaps loyalty to the former commander-in-chief. Just days after Trump signed the controversial executive order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” Obama’s DHS IG, John Roth, fired off a press release announcing his probe. “In addition to reviewing the implementation of the Executive Order, the OIG will review DHS’ adherence to court orders and allegations of individual misconduct on the part of DHS personnel,” the announcement states. “If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review.” The probe was initiated in response to “congressional request and whistleblower and hotline complaints,” according to the announcement.
Trump issued the order on January 27 halting for 90 days the entry of citizens from notorious terrorist nations—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—in the name of national security. “Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program,” Trump’s order explains. “The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.”
Simply put, the order was issued to protect Americans by ensuring that those admitted to the U.S. don’t bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law,” the order states. “In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”
Predictably, the order ignited protests, hysteria among virtually all mainstream media outlets and a series of legal challenges claiming discrimination and violations of religious freedoms. An Obama-appointed federal judge in Los Angeles, California has already issued an emergency order forbidding government officials from enforcing Trump’s measure. The case was filed on behalf of 28 Yemen nationals who claim they will “suffer irreparable harm.” The judge, Andre Birotte Jr., who was also a federal prosecutor under Obama, agreed and writes in his order that the injunction “is in the public interest.” The order bans government officers, agents, employees or attorneys from removing, detaining or blocking the entry of the Yemenis or any other person from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
When a federal court in Texas issued an injunction halting Obama’s broad executive amnesty order, the administration ignored it and continued to protect illegal immigrants. A federal appellate court upheld the decision and the U.S. Supreme Court slammed the illegal Obama policy by upholding the injunction. The preposterous measure would have granted unilateral amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. and the administration violated the court orders by implementing prosecutorial discretion, which allows federal agencies to decide to what degree they enforce certain laws against particular individuals. Under this outrageous initiative, DHS lost track of how many unauthorized foreigners—some felons in their native country—it refused to prosecute under Obama’s broad and illegal amnesty initiative. The DHS IG opted to sit those out and let Obama carry on with his illegal mandates.
© 2010-2017 Judicial Watch, Inc. All Rights Reserved.