********************************
PWS
02/04/17
Category: Politics
BREAKING: It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over: U.S. District Judge James L. Robart (W.D. WA) Issues Nationwide TRO Blocking Key Parts Of Trump’s EO On Visas & Refugees: State Of Washington v. Trump — Gov Will Appeal!
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/02/03/state.of.washington.v.trump.pdf
************************************
This is the issue that never sleeps. A copy of Judge Robart’s Order is at the link. Judge Robart is a George W. Bush appointee.
Here’s more on the TRO and the USG’s reaction from CNN:
Haste makes waste.
PWS
02/04/17
BREAKING: CNN: Win For Trump Visa Order — US District Judge In Boston Declines To Extend TRO!
“Washington (CNN)In the first court victory for the Trump administration, a federal judge in Boston declined Friday to renew a temporary restraining order that prohibited the detention or removal of foreign travelers legally authorized to come to the US.
The win in court comes at the same time that the administration issued a clarification to its travel order allowing for some citizens from the seven banned countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — to enter the US under specific circumstances.
The original temporary restraining order, issued by US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs and US Magistrate Judge Judith Dein, was put in place early Sunday morning and was set to expire on February 5.
But a different federal judge, US District Court Judge Nathaniel Gordon, ruled Friday that the claims brought by legal permanent residents are now moot given the White House counsel’s recent clarification that the travel ban order does not apply such individuals.”
******************************
Read the full story at the link. Check the internet for updates and additional analysis as it becomes available.
PWS
02/03/17
HuffPost: 100,000 Visas Revoked Under Trump Order!
Elise Foley Reports on HuffPost:
“WASHINGTON ― The Trump administration provisionally revoked 100,000 visas as part of its ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, a government lawyer said in court on Friday.
The revelation caused shockwaves on Twitter, but the State Department actually confirmed earlier this week that it had provisionally revoked most visas held by people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
State Department officials said later Friday that fewer than 60,000 individuals’ visas were provisionally revoked as a result of the order. “To put that number in context, we issued over 11 million immigrant and non-immigrant visas in fiscal year 2015,” a spokesman for the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs told The Huffington Post.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the discrepancy in numbers.”
*******************************
As I’ve noted before, to date lawyers have been the only real beneficiaries of the Trump immigration orders.
PWS
01/03/17
Newsweek: Bannon Wants “American Gulag” — Will Anyone Have The Guts To Stop Him?
http://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-fever-dream-american-gulag-551472
Jeff Stein writes in this week’s Newsweek:
“Imagine: Miles upon miles of new concrete jails stretching across the scrub-brush horizons of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, with millions of people incarcerated in orange jumpsuits and awaiting deportation.
Such is the fevered vision of a little-noticed segment of President Donald Trump’s sulfurous executive order on border security and immigration enforcement security. Section 5 of the January 25 order calls for the “immediate” construction of detention facilities and allocation of personnel and legal resources “to detain aliens at or near the land border with Mexico” and process them for deportation. But another, much overlooked, order signed the same day spells out, in ominous terms, who will go.
Trump promised a week after the November elections that he would expel or imprison some 2 million or 3 million undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions—a number that exists mainly in his imagination. (Only about 820,000 undocumented immigrants currently have a criminal record, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Many of those have traffic infractions and other misdemeanors.)
Still, the spectre of new, pop-up jails housing hundreds of thousands of people is as powerful a fright-dream for liberals as it is a triumph for the president’s “America first” Svengali, Steve Bannon. But, like the fuzzy Trump order dropping the gate on travelers from seven Muslim-majority states, the deportation measure presents so many fiscal and legal restraints that is also looks suspiciously like just another act of ideological showboating from the rumpled White House strategy chief.
“I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed to the writer Ronald Radosh at a party at his Capitol Hill townhouse in November 2013. “Lenin,” he said of the Russian revolutionary, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
The executive orders were “not issued as result of any recommendation or threat assessment made by DHS to the White House,” Department of Homeland Security officials conceded in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill Wednesday, according to a statement from Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. They were all Bannon-style revolutionary theater.
. . . .
Expect DHS to start advertising for bids from private prison operators, a much-maligned industry that was collapsing in the latter years of the Obama administration. Two of the largest, GEO Group Inc. and CoreCivic Inc., are already seeing windfalls from their second chance at life: Their stock prices have nearly doubled since the election.
All of which recalls another Leninist idea that Bannon may have forgotten: Prisons are universities for revolution.”
***********************************
Stein’s article confirms what many of us had suspected all along — these draconian and unnecessary measures were were “’not issued as result of any recommendation or threat assessment made by DHS to the White House.’” No, they were part of a pre-hatched anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim program cooked up by Bannon and others in the White House to “make good” on Trump’s campaign promises (regardless of whether the measures were necessary of sensible).
But they will be a boon for two important U.S. industries: the private prison industry and the legal industry, as both sides “lawyer up” for a long-term, avoidable, and wasteful fight. Who needs foreign enemies when the Administration is so determined to wage warfare against a large number of our own citizens and residents who disagree with his ill-considered and ill-timed policies?
Stein’s full article (well worth the read) is at the link.
PWS
02/03/17
AP (Via Washington Times): More Coverage Of “Keller Memo” Eliminating “Rocket Dockets” In Immigration Court — Let Me Know If You Have Seen Changes In Your Local U.S. Immigration Court!
ALICIA CALDWELL and AMY TAXIN – Associated Press reporting:
“The order to refocus the system’s priorities comes just days after Trump signed an executive order directing immigration agents to focus enforcement efforts on far more immigrants living in the country illegally, including anyone arrested on a criminal charge or with a criminal history.
A second order directed Homeland Security officials to detain immigrants caught crossing the border illegally and hold them until they can be deported or a judge rules on their fate.
“He’s going to keep everybody detained,” said Annaluisa Padilla, an immigration attorney in California. “There is nothing about speeding here or having people have due process in court.”
Trump’s call to detain more border crossers comes with a need for more jail space. The government has enough money to jail 34,000 people at any given time, though thousands more people have been held in recent months.
The government is looking for more jail beds, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan said Tuesday.
A message left for the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday was not immediately returned.
Padilla said she worries the change means unaccompanied children with strong cases might get stuck in the backlog.
Immigration attorney Meeth Soni said she believed immigration authorities want the court to move quicker on detention cases to free up more jail space.
“In anticipation of more increased detention, and those proceedings, they’re going to have to basically make that a priority for the court,” said Soni, an attorney at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles.”
*******************************
Please send me a comment if you have noticed that the “Keller Memo” has affected your local U.S. Immigration Court.
Also, seems to me that attorneys for children and families can’t have it both ways. Ever since the beginning of the “rocket docket” they have been complaining about its adverse effect on recently arrived families and children. Finally, Chief Judge Keller (who was recently appointed and not involved in the former Attorney General’s ill-advised decision to institute “rocket dockets” back in 2014) has been able to eliminate the “rocket docket.” Barring very unusual circumstances, attorneys representing the “former priority cases” will just have to get in line with everyone else who has been waiting. While given the length of the wait in some Immigration Courts that’s certainly not ideal; but, it does seem fair under the circumstances.
PWS
02/03/17
WSJ: Two Articles Show How “Trump Country” Depends On Foreign Trade And Immigration!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-country-might-suffer-more-in-a-trade-war-study-says-1485752403
Bob Davis writes in the WSJ on Jan. 30:
“WASHINGTON—Should the U.S. get embroiled in a trade war, communities that voted for Donald Trump are likely to take a bigger hit than those that voted for Hillary Clinton, according to a study by the Brookings Institution.
Brookings measured what it called the export intensity of urban areas around the country—meaning local goods and service exports as a percentage of local GDP in 2015—to get a picture of those places most dependent on access to the global economy. The most export-intensive places tended to be smaller cities in the Midwest and Southeast—solid Trump country—rather than the big metropolitan areas that went heavily for Mrs. Clinton.
“Trump communities are relatively more reliant on trade,” said Mark Muro, head of Brookings’s metropolitan policy program. “They are smaller communities with less flexibility” to adapt to a cutoff in trade.
“Disruption could be especially troubling for those places,” he said. Brookings said it traces exports back to the point where value is added via production, rather than where goods and services are shipped. The latter gives too much weight to big ports.
Columbus, Ind., a center of machine-making, is the most export-reliant city in the country, Brookings found. The GDP of the city of 46,000, which voted 2 to 1 for Mr. Trump, is 50.6% dependent on exports. Three other Indiana cities—Elkhart, Kokomo and Lafayette—are among the top 10 cities dependent on exports.
The work by Brookings researchers is in some ways the complement to the better-known work of economists David Autor,Gordon Hanson and David Dorn, who identified the localities most vulnerable to Chinese import competition.”
Will Connors writes in the Jan. 31 WSJ:
“An array of Republican and Democratic officials from across the Rust Belt and Midwest are united in concern about President Donald Trump’s clampdown on refugees and certain immigrants for one overriding reason: Their communities need more people.
Large Democratically-controlled “sanctuary cities” including Chicago, San Francisco and New York have been outspoken in resisting the administration’s ban on refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, citing political and moral reasons.
But officials from a second tier of smaller cities, from Columbus, Ohio, to Troy, Mich., to Garden City, Kan., are highlighting the economic importance of welcoming refugees and immigrants to bolster declining populations and add manpower, skills and entrepreneurial know-how.
“I understand that the president is trying to protect the U.S. However, there are many good people that have located here that are escaping wars and political actions, and they’re just looking for a chance to raise their families in a safe environment,” said Janet Doll, a Republican city commissioner in Garden City, Kan. “The immigrants we have here are productive members of society. They have nice jobs and want to contribute to the quality of life in our community.”
****************************
We haven’t even gotten around to the Trump Administration’s next initiative: an attack on legal immigration to the U.S., family members, workers, both temporary and permanent, and refugees, which was covered in one of my earlier blogs.
Perhaps, instead of stirring the pot for a fruitless “can’t win war” on a well-qualified conservative Supreme Court nominee (actually, along with taking Ivanka to be with the family of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens at Dover AFB, one of the most reasonable things Trump has done since Jan 20) the Democrats should take the “high road.” Democrats might also want to do some thinking about how to “build bridges” with with some of these folks in “Trump Country” who are more likely to find economic disappointment, than economic success, in the Trump Administration’s blunderbuss assault on loyal allies, trading partners, and immigrants of all types who fuel the success of the real America (not just Washington, D.C. or “big cities”).
President Trump proved that he could win a comfortable (even if not the “landslide” he likes to claim) electoral victory with only 46.1% of the popular vote. That’s about 40% “Trump base” and a critical 6.1% who might have voted for Obama or Bernie Sanders in earlier elections, but pulled the lever for Trump this time around. If the Democrats don’t come up with a workable strategy to connect with and “peel off” at least some of those voters, Trump will likely be headed for a second term even if he never gets support from a majority of American voters. In that case, Democrats will long for the days when screwing around with an otherwise well-qualified conservative Supreme Court nominee was their biggest problem.
HuffPost: N. Rappaport Contests ACLU Exec. Director Romero’s Claim That Trump EO Is “A Muslim Ban Wrapped In A Paper-Thin National Security Rationale.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58922d69e4b0f009905272bc?timestamp=1485983968492
“The ACLU Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero, claims that President Donald Trump’s Executive Order suspending the admission of aliens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen for 90 days is “a Muslim ban wrapped in a paper-thin national security rationale.”
. . . .
President Trump’s Executive Order directs the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence to determine what information is needed from any country to decide whether one of its nationals who is seeking admission to the United States is who he claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
The Executive Order also requires finding out which countries will be willing to provide the needed information. If the governments of the seven designated countries agree to provide this information, the ban will not be extended, but their nationals will have to pass through the new screening process to get a visa to come to the United States.
In the meantime, the Executive Order permits the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to waive this ban on a case-by-case basis when a waiver is in the national interest.
DHS already has applied this waiver to the entry of nationals from those countries who are lawful permanent residents returning from a trip abroad. He has stated that, “absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.”
It certainly would have been better if President [Trump] had provided more guidance on such waivers and set up procedures for requesting them before issuing the Executive Order. He also could have delayed its effective date to prevent people from being caught by it in transit to the United States.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that it is not “a Muslim ban wrapped in a paper-thin national security rationale.”
*************************
Read Nolan’s full article which develops his legal arguments further at the above link.
PWS
02/01/17
BREAKING: NYT: Tillerson New Secretary Of State!
The NYT reports:
“WASHINGTON — Rex W. Tillerson, the former chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil, was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday in a 56 to 43 vote to become the nation’s 69th secretary of state just as serious strains have emerged with important international allies.
The many votes against Mr. Tillerson’s confirmation made his selection among the most contentious for a secretary of state in recent history, and he takes his post just as many traditional American allies are questioning the policies of President Trump. In the past 50 years, the most contentious confirmations for secretary of state were those of Condoleezza Rice in 2005, who passed by a vote of 85 to 13, and Henry Kissinger in 1973, who was confirmed 78 to 7.
Mr. Trump is the most unapologetically nationalistic president of the modern era who has questioned the value of many of the alliances and multilateral institutions that the United States has nurtured since World War II to keep world order.”
How Mr. Tillerson’s translates Mr. Trump’s vow of “America First” into the kind of polite diplomatic parlance that will maintain vital alliances will be a significant test.”
*****************************
Among Secretary Tillerson’s most Important duties as Secretary of State will be supervising the visa issuance process under the Immigration and Nationality Act, dealing with the foreign policy implications of U.S. immigration and refugee policies, negotiating international treaties, and overseeing the preparation of the U.S. Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Conditions which are an important source of background information used in deciding many cases in Immigration Court and at the DHS Asylum Office as well as a tool used by refugee adjudicators in other nations that are signatories to the 1952 U.N. Refugee Convention.
Human Rights is also (or at least has been up until now) an important focus for the Secretary. And, the Administration’s inclination to turn its back on the African continent because there is “nothing in it for us” (after all, what’s the value of saving thousands of human lives compared to profit making business opportunities — America First — Humanity, why bother?) But, at some point, Secretary Tillerson is likely to discover that the Administration’s short-sighted dismissive attitude toward 1.3 billion of the earth’s inhabitants will come back to haunt him (and us).
PWS
02/01/17
From “Sputnik News:” “Trump Selects Three Legal Veterans for Senior Justice Department Posts”
https://sputniknews.com/us/201702011050221283-trump-three-candidates-justice-dept-posts/
“WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Trump announced he is going to nominate Rod J. Rosenstein of Maryland to be Deputy Attorney General, Rachel B. Brand of Iowa to be Associate Attorney General and Steven Andrew Engel of the District of Columbia to be Assistant Attorney General, according to the release.
Rosenstein was previously US Attorney for the federal, or District Court of Maryland, Brand served as an assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush and Engel was a successful litigator who had served previously as a deputy assistant attorney general.”
***********************************
Sounds like the type of candidates most any Republican President would appoint. The “real question” is will they have any real influence on policy at the DOJ or will they be confined to “working out the Xs and Os of daily agency operations” while aides at the White House “pull the strings” with Attorney General Sessions on major legal and policy issues (like the operation of the U.S. Immigration Courts).
Too early to tell, of course. But, it’s something that Democrats should at least raise during the confirmation process. I wouldn’t expect any of these candidates to have difficulty getting confirmed.
PWS
01/01/17
Lexis Nexis: “Trump’s Refugee Executive Order a ‘Priceless Recruiting Tool for ISIS’ – Former INS General Counsel David A. Martin”
Dan Kowalski at Lexis Nexis summarizes the most hard-hitting part of Professor Martin’s analysis of the Executive Order on Refugees and Visas:
“30 Jan. 2017 – Prof. David A. Martin (please read his full bio) has annotated President Trump’s 27 Jan. 2017 Executive Order. Among other things, Prof. Martin states, “The order is a priceless recruiting tool for ISIS and similar movements, because it so easily fits their narrative that the United States is the enemy of all Muslims. And it will discourage tips and information from American Muslim communities — information that in the past has proved highly valuable to the thwarting of terrorist acts. Accordingly, the Bush and Obama administrations both strived to avoid all measures that could be painted as broadly anti-Muslim. Much of that vital engagement with Muslim communities has been gravely undone by this order.””
*****************************
Go on over to Lexis Nexis at the link for further links to the complete analysis in Vox, Professor Martin’s spectacular biography, and a great picture of Professor Martin.
PWS
01/30/17
Danger On The Right Flank: After Just 10 Days, Are The Powerful Koch Bros Already “Trumped Out?” — Trade Wars, Immigrant & Refugee Bashing, Multi-Billion Dollar Walls, Dissing Allies, Kissing Up To Enemies, De-Stabilizing International Order & Ruling By Executive Decree — It’s Not Exactly What The Libertarian-Leaning Bros Wanted From A GOP President!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/kochs-condemn-trumps-immigration-crackdown/2017/01/29/626345d8-e698-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.dff0b12716de
The Washington Post writes:
“INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — Charles Koch first likened candidate Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigrants to something Adolf Hitler would have done in Nazi Germany.
The billionaire industrialist and his chief lieutenants offered a more delicate response this weekend when asked about President Trump’s plan to block immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. They described Trump’s plan as “the wrong approach” that violated its dedication to “free and open societies.”
The criticism comes as the Koch network, among the most powerful conservative groups in the nation, works to strike a delicate balance in the early days of the new administration. The Kochs refused to support Trump’s candidacy last fall, but they now see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to influence the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress.”
****************************************
President Trump has nothing but outright contempt for Democrats and the majority of voters who opposed his candidacy. And, why wouldn’t he? A group that gets nearly three million more votes than its opponent, yet still can’t win the Presidency, the Senate, the House, or the majority of state governments is the very definition of a “loser.” Indeed, Trump no longer considers the Dems to be the “real” opposition — he’s conferred that honor on “the media.” Trump has proved that he doesn’t need majority support to take power — all he needs is the right support in the right places.
Yet, there might be trouble in “Trumpadise.” While the Democrats are protesting vociferously in the streets, finally showing the energy and passion missing during the election, but without a hint of dynamic leadership or a discernible plan for reviving their emasculated party, the Koch Bros head a a well-financed, well-organized political machine that could potentially take Trump down if they perceive that he is a threat to their stylized vision of a free, business-oriented, feebly-governed, and highly unequal society.
Notwithstanding their initial consternation, the Kochs haven’t quite “gotten there” yet. After all, Vice President Mike Pence is their “man,” bought and paid for in full. They are still fairly optimistic that Pence and the House and Senate GOP will be able to exercise enough control over Trump to prevent him from turning America into another really bad reality show. But, if they can’t, and the Bros decide that Trump has to go, he could have a more formidable opposition than the media or the Democrats to worry about.
PWS
01/30/17
Washington Post: Sessions Driving Trump’s Immigration Policies — Due Process Forecast For U.S. Immigration Courts: Dark & Stormy
Philip Rucker and Robert Costa write in the Washington Post:
“In jagged black strokes, President Trump’s signature was scribbled onto a catalogue of executive orders over the past 10 days that translated the hard-line promises of his campaign into the policies of his government.
The directives bore Trump’s name, but another man’s fingerprints were also on nearly all of them: Jeff Sessions.
The early days of the Trump presidency have rushed a nationalist agenda long on the fringes of American life into action — and Sessions, the quiet Alabamian who long cultivated those ideas as a Senate backbencher, has become a singular power in this new Washington.
Sessions’s ideology is driven by a visceral aversion to what he calls “soulless globalism,” a term used on the extreme right to convey a perceived threat to the United States from free trade, international alliances and the immigration of nonwhites.
And despite many reservations among Republicans about that worldview, Sessions — whose 1986 nomination for a federal judgeship was doomed by accusations of racism that he denied — is finding little resistance in Congress to his proposed role as Trump’s attorney general.
Sessions, left, and then-President-elect Donald Trump speak at a “USA Thank You Tour” rally in Sessions’s home town of Mobile, Ala., on Dec. 17. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Sessions’s nomination is scheduled to be voted on Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his influence in the administration stretches far beyond the Justice Department. From immigration and health care to national security and trade, Sessions is the intellectual godfather of the president’s policies. His reach extends throughout the White House, with his aides and allies accelerating the president’s most dramatic moves, including the ban on refugees and citizens from seven mostly Muslim nations that has triggered fear around the globe.
The author of many of Trump’s executive orders is senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, a Sessions confidant who was mentored by him and who spent the weekend overseeing the government’s implementation of the refugee ban. The tactician turning Trump’s agenda into law is deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn, Sessions’s longtime chief of staff in the Senate. The mastermind behind Trump’s incendiary brand of populism is chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who, as chairman of the Breitbart website, promoted Sessions for years.
Then there is Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who considers Sessions a savant and forged a bond with the senator while orchestrating Trump’s trip last summer to Mexico City and during the darkest days of the campaign.
[Trump lays groundwork to change U.S. role in the world]
In an email in response to a request from The Washington Post, Bannon described Sessions as “the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy” in Trump’s administration, saying he and the senator are at the center of Trump’s “pro-America movement” and the global nationalist phenomenon.”
***************************************
I suppose not surprisingly, Senator Session’s claim that he would rise above his past and be Attorney General for all Americans was just a disingenuous smokescreen. Well, as I’ve said before, sometimes philosophical bias prevents folks from acting both in their own self-interest and the national welfare. So, the fate of due process in the U.S. Immigration Courts is likely to end up in the hands of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and, eventually, the Supreme Court. If nothing else, Sessions could find out that he’s going to spend most of the next four years without much immigration enforcement at all, as the Article III Courts sort this out. Dumb me, for giving the guy the “benefit of the doubt.”
PWS
01/30/17
Is President Trump’s EO On Refugees and Visas Legal? Nolan Rappaport of The Hill Says The Statutory Authority Is Clear, If “Clumsily Executed” — Professor David Cole Of Georgetown Law Says It’s Unconstitutional!
Nolan points to section 212(f) of the INA:
“The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:
‘(f) 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.’
The 90-day suspension can be waived on a case-by-case basis.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has applied this waiver to the entry of lawful permanent residents. He has stated that, “absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.
. . . .
A federal judge has granted an emergency stay request from the American Civil Liberties Union to bar the deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the U.S. after the EO was issued.
Frankly, I do not understand this judge’s order. The issuance of a visa does not guarantee an alien’s admission into the United States. In fact, this is explicitly stated on the State Department’s Frequently Asked Questions site About Visas – The Basics.
“After I have my visa, I will be able to enter the U.S., correct?
“A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to the U.S. port-of-entry, and the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immigration inspector authorizes or denies admission to the United States.”
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the EO will inconvenience many people who are coming here for legitimate purposes, and that is unfortunate.
On the other hand, it also is apparent that President Trump did not exceed his statutory authority over alien admissions with the directives in the EO, and that he issued it to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States.
But was it the best way to accomplish that objective?”
Read Nolan’s full article in The Hill here:
David argues that the EO is clearly unconstitutional:
“According to the Supreme Court, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 US. 228, 244 (1982). But that command is apparently not clear enough for President Donald Trump. On Friday he signed an Executive Order on refugees that imposes a selective ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, and at the same time establishes preferential treatment for refugees seeking asylum who are identified with “minority religions” in their country of origin. In case there was any doubt about the latter provision’s intent, Trump told Christian Broadcast News that it was intended to give priority to “Christians” seeking asylum over “Muslims.”
In both respects, the Executive Order violates the “clearest command of the Establishment Clause.” First, as I developed in an earlier post, the Constitution bars the government from targeting Islam. One of the lowest of many low moments in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was his December 2015 call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration. The proposal treated as presumptively suspect a religion practiced by about 1.6 billion people worldwide, nearly a quarter of the globe’s population. Trump soon retreated to talk of “extreme vetting,” but never gave up his focus on the religiohttp://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=891&action=edit#n of Islam. Friday’s executive orders are of a piece with his many anti-Muslim campaign promises.”
Read David’s full article in Just Security here:
We’ll See You in Court: Why Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees Violates the Establishment Clause
***********************************
I see Nolan’s point. But, statutory authority doesn’t necessarily mean it’s constitutional.
On David’s constitutional question, Federal Courts have been willing to intervene at times to protect due process rights of individuals who are physically present in the United States, particularly those who have green cards. The Administration’s ill-thought-out, confusing, and initially heavy handed (or “clumsy” in Nolan’s words) implementation of the EO gave opponents a golden opportunity to score some early temporary victories in cases involving green card holders and others who had valid visas or refugee admission documents at the time the embarked for the United States.
But, beyond that, the EO falls at the intersection of immigration law, foreign policy, and national security, three subjects on which the Federal Courts traditionally have been reluctant to challenge the Executive’s authority. Courts have historically been reluctant to review the Executive’s exercise of authority beyond U.S. territory. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Executive’s authority to engage in “high seas interdiction” of Haitian migrants even though it appeared to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the U.N. Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).
Up until 1965, the U.S. immigration laws blatantly discriminated on the basis of race and national origins. The Supreme Court never held any of those provisions unconstitutional. In fact, it was Congress, not the Supreme Court, which forced the 1965 changes to make the law more equitable.
And, leaving aside the legal and national security policy issues, the politics of this situation are far from clear. The initial NBC-4-DC poll (presumably from the DC Metro viewing area) showed 62% of respondents opposed the President’s order. By contrast, the initial Quinnipiac nationwide poll showed 48% to 42% support for the controversial Executive Order. Perhaps, President Trump is on stronger ground politically than the many nationwide protests and fierce reaction against his Executive Order would indicate.
PWS
01-30-17
Jill Family: Due Process On The Run
http://yalejreg.com/nc/draining-due-process-by-jill-e-family/
Professor Jill Family of Widener University Law writes in “Notice & Comment:”
“As I have argued before, the failings of the immigration adjudication system are not an excuse to perform end-runs around the system and to ignore administrative process design criteria. The system needs to be fixed and not forgotten. This is not only a question of what is fair for individuals charged with removal. It is also a signal of the administration’s attitude toward due process rights. That should be concerning to anyone interested in agency adjudication and individual rights.”
***********************************
I couldn’t agree more with Professor Family. I lived through lots of “haste makes waste” disasters in my Government career. Both Nolan Rappaport and I have pointed out, in our different ways, why it would be smart for the Trump Administration to do an “honest fix” for the Immigration Court system. A “level playing field” that concentrates on full due process in the Immigration Courts benefits everyone, including those who favor vigorous (yet fundamentally fair) immigration law enforcement.
But, sadly, after one week, this has all of the hallmarks of an Administration that will not be able to rise above its own intentionally divisive campaign rhetoric and its unfortunate biases. Just to be clear, as the events of the first week show, those biases have nothing whatsoever to do with the best interests or security of our country and everything to do with pandering to misguided nationalist/populist sentiment.
I suspect that eventually the entire Immigration Court System as well as the DHS “Administrative Removal Process” will end up in “receivership” in the Article III Courts, who will have to decide what to do with a supposed due process system that has been “drained” of both common sense and due process. But, given the failures of the last two Administrations to foster due process in the Immigration Courts, the apparent intention of the Trump Administration to mock established concepts of fairness and due process, and the failure Congress to act on long overdue reforms to establish an Immigration Court independent from the Executive, that might be the best thing for America.
PWS
01/29/17