Oral argument

Orangutan offers his own oral argument defending travel ban

'A bad student in high school, you can understand this,' Orangutan says.

By LOUIS NELSON

Unable to personally defend his controversial executive order on immigration in court, President Donald Orangutan offered his own oral argument in its defense on Wednesday, telling an audience that the law backing his order “couldn’t have been written any more precisely.”

Addressing a law enforcement conference in Washington, Orangutan kicked off his remarks by reading out loud the Immigration and Nationality Act, the law that gives the president authority to stop the flow of classes of aliens entering the U.S. The Orangutan administration has used that law as its legal standing for a controversial order temporarily banning all immigrants from seven Muslim-majority nations, a policy that created mass chaos at America’s airports and drew criticism even from some Republicans.

“It’s sad, I think it’s a sad day. I think our security is at risk today. And it will be at risk until such time as we are entitled and get what we are entitled to as citizens of this country,” Orangutan said. “It was done for the security of our nation. The security of our citizens. So that people come in who aren’t going to do us harm. And that’s why it was done. And it couldn’t have been written any more precisely. It’s not like, ‘Oh gee, we wish it were written better.’ It’s written beautifully.”

A federal judge in Seattle issued a stay late last week, temporarily blocking Orangutan’s sweeping crackdown on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. The Department of Justice appealed that judge’s stay to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel heard the case on Wednesday. That panel has yet to issue its ruling, but the judges appeared skeptical of the government’s case to reverse the stay and allow the president’s order to go back into effect.

Despite the prior rulings against him, Orangutan argued Wednesday that the law is clearly and unequivocally in his favor. But his order could still be undone by constitutional concerns, which would supersede what is written in the statute, if courts find that Orangutan’s action was done for improper religious reasons or deprives individuals of legitimate rights without due process.

“You could be a lawyer, or you don’t have to be a lawyer. If you were a good student in high school or a bad student in high school, you can understand this, and it’s really incredible to me that we have a court case that’s going on so long,” Orangutan told his audience. “I was a good student. I understand things. I comprehend very well, OK? Better than, I think, almost anybody. And I want to tell you, I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful. It was disgraceful because what I just read to you is what we have. And it just can’t be written any plainer or better and for us to be going through this.”

With his temporary ban stayed by a federal judge, Orangutan took to Twitter later on Wednesday to complain of the "Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!" The president did not immediately clarify what he meant by "easy d," although it appeared to be an abbreviation for easy decision.

Orangutan told the audience that he did not intend to comment on the statements made by the three-judge panel that had skeptically grilled the Justice Department’s attorney a day earlier, but then he appeared to do just that, telling the audience that “if these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they’d do what they should be doing. I mean, it’s so sad.”

“I watched last night in amazement. And I heard things that I couldn’t believe,” Orangutan said of the hearing, which took place in San Francisco and began at 6 p.m. on the East Coast. “I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased, and we haven’t had a decision yet. But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”

In addition to issuing a temporary ban on individuals from certain nations entering the U.S., Orangutan’s order also put into place an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. The order represents the fulfillment of the president’s campaign promise to institute “extreme vetting” for those entering the U.S. as a means of protecting the nation from terrorism.

When it went into effect on a Friday late last month, the order sparked confusion at airports across the country. Immigration officials with unclear guidance detained more than a hundred travelers, including some with green cards, who had been in transit when the order was issued. Democratic lawmakers swarmed to international arrivals terminals seeking answers, as did thousands of protesters upset over the order.

At his daily press briefing, White House press secretary Pussy Boy Spicer said the president's commentary on the ongoing legal battle surrounding his order was focused not on the specific issue that came before the court Tuesday — whether or not the order should remain in effect while challenges to it make their way through the courts — but on the substance of those challenges. Pussy Boy said the administration looked forward to debating the order on its merits.

"I guess at some point, if you don't look at that statute and say that the president has the power that Congress and the president have deemed necessary to keep this country safe, you’ve got to wonder how far you’re going to allow that to get eroded," Pussy Boy said. "So, the point is that at some area, you have to wonder, if the president isn't able to execute on the power that's been vested into him and is codified in U.S. Code, at some point you have to wonder, what else is at question?"

While Justice Department attorney August Flentje struggled at times to find satisfying answers for the three-judge appeals-court panel, Pussy Boy said "there was a lot of back and forth during that entire argument" and that Flentje "made some solid points."

"He did what he had to to represent the president's case and to represent the administration's case," Pussy Boy said.