Appeals court rejects Trump’s immigration ban

Appeals court rejects Trump’s immigration ban February 10, 2017

SeaTac_Airport_protest_against_immigration_ban_02 (1)The lower court that blocked President Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven terrorist-plagued countries was upheld by an appeals court.  Next stop, more than likely:  the Supreme Court.

I understand that lots of people are pro-immigration and feel compassion for refugees from some of these dangerous countries.  But I’m curious about the legal reasoning.  As I understand it, the executive branch has the statutory authority to regulate immigration, including excluding citizens of nations on the basis of national interest.  And I can’t see how this ban is discriminatory.  This isn’t the ban on Muslims that Trump proposed during the campaign.  Most of the world’s Muslims can come in, just not those from the seven countries with a history of terrorism.

But Trump is thwarted, which makes him angry.  And, as is his custom, he responds to criticism by “hitting back,” slamming the “so-called judge” that delivered the initial decision, which does not help his case with the judicial branch.  Even his Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was bothered by that.

UPDATE:  Here is the statue in U.S. law, which was not even referenced in the judges’ ruling:

“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.”

According to this analysis, the judges’ ruling focused on two issues:  (1) the administration’s contention that the executive order was “unreviewable” by a court, which was predictably rejected; (2) that the president’s campaign statement about not allowing Muslims into the country invalidated what would otherwise be a lawful order. (That makes no sense whatsoever!)

UPDATE:  Trump now says he will not at the present time take the case to the Supreme Court.  He will pursue it in lower courts.  And he may rewrite the order so that it passes legal muster.

Photo:  SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban by Dennis Bratland (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

From Trump Dealt Major Setback as Appeals Court Sides With Immigrants – Bloomberg:

A federal appeals court ruled unanimously that the U.S. will remain open to refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim-majority countries, rejecting a bid by the Trump administration to reinstate a travel ban in the name of national security.

The San Francisco-based appeals court on Thursday spurned the government’s request to close the doors after days of public debate over President Donald Trump’s attacks on the judicial system and a rush of fearful immigrants. The ruling increases the likelihood that the administration will ask the Supreme Court to step into a case that’s the biggest test of Trump’s executive power yet.

Trump was defiant, tweeting within minutes of the ruling, “SEE YOU IN COURT. THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

[Keep reading. . .]

"Marx was German."

Humans = Machines
"Tap-dancing is a good phrase for its modus operandi."

The Martin Luther Chatbot
"If Jesus' commands in the Sermon on the Mount are about the true meaning of ..."

The Martin Luther Chatbot
"We're still talking.On the whole, I think the Ai has captured a lot of Luther's ..."

The Martin Luther Chatbot

Browse Our Archives