ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Hawaii's case against Trump's travel ban, debunked. By Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry

Getty


Hawaii has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s revised version of his Executive Order, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” on four main grounds:


1. Hawaii claims the Order violates the prohibition against nationality-based discrimination in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).


This argument is based on 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) of the INA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. Hawaii claims that the EO violates this provision by prohibiting nationals of six countries from entry into the United States.

But this interpretation takes the section out of context. It just applies to the per country levels for the annual allocation of immigrant visas to aliens coming to the United States to live here permanently.


In the section titled “Numerical limitations on individual foreign states,” it states that “Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) [family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants] and in sections 1101(a)(27) [special immigrant], 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) [aliens not subject to direct numerical limitations], and 1153 [allocation of immigrant visas] … no person shall … be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's … nationality.”

Read more at
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...l-ban-debunked

Published originally on The Hill

About the author
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.





Submit "Hawaii's case against Trump's travel ban, debunked.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "Hawaii's case against Trump's travel ban, debunked.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "Hawaii's case against Trump's travel ban, debunked.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "Hawaii's case against Trump's travel ban, debunked.  By Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "Hawaii's case against Trump's travel ban, debunked.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "Hawaii's case against Trump's travel ban, debunked.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "Hawaii's case against Trump's travel ban, debunked.  By Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Updated 03-15-2017 at 08:35 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update as of March 19 at 5:27 pm:

    In order to better understand the direction that Trump's Muslim entry ban orders are taking America in, see part

    10. Racism is inherent to fascism

    in Anis Shivani's March 17 article:

    Trump and Mussolini: 11 Key Lessons From Historical Fascism

    http://www.alternet.org/visions/trum...orical-fascism

    Update as of 9:08 pm, March 15:

    A federal district court judge in Hawaii has blocked Trump's latest version of his Muslim immigration ban. On first impression in reading the order, Trump has built up such a record of bigoted and hate-filled comments about Muslims both as a candidate, and as president in the short time he has been in office, that the court had no choice but to recognize the true reason for the ban, rather than turning a blind eye to the obvious.

    There is an old Japanese saying:


    "Misfortune comes from his mouth."

    America's 45th president has just provided a good example of this
    .

    My original reply to Nolan's effort to defend this indefensible ban on some 100 million Muslims in six different countries based on their religion, rather than on any genuine national security reasons, appears below:

    One has to agree with Nolan about the limited scope of 8 U.S.C. Section 1152(a)(1)(A). If this were the only argument against the legality of Trump's latest order banning some 100 million people in six countries, approximately 99 per cent of whom just happen by some twist of fate to be Muslims, then the case for upholding the latest ban order would be strong indeed.

    But Nolan is on much weaker ground when one turns to his other arguments set forth in the rest of his article, ascontained in The Hill.

    First, Nolan argues that the president's power to exclude any classes of immigrants he wants, for any reason that he wants, is virtually unlimited under INA Section 212(f).

    But, as one federal judge whose name has been mentioned quite a bit recently, eloquently and extensively wrote in a 2016 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (albeit in a different context) the executive branch does not have the power to rewrite the nation's entire immigration laws on its own, and the Constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, which gives the judicial branch the power to review executive branch actions for rationality or reasonableness, cannot be so easily done away with.

    That judge is Neil Gorsuch, Trump's own appointee for the Supreme Court.

    See: Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 10th Cir. August 23, 2016.

    Nolan also argues that, in determining the Constitutionality of Trump's latest order under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom ot religion and prohibition against establishment of religion, one should ignore the more than one year history of Trump's tirades against Muslims prior to his taking office as America's second president in this century to be rejected by a majority of the voters in the election.

    This argument is, on its face so absurd, that it does not require further discussion.

    One might just as well argue that Adolf Hitler's long record of attacks against the Jews going back more than a decade before he actually took office as chancellor of Germany in 1933 were irrelevant to determining the purpose of the Nuremberg laws.

    Nolan uses the word "bunk" in the title of his article. There is no better word than "bunk" to describe his claim that the courts should turn a blind eye toward Trump's more than 12 month history of stirring up fear and hate against, not only Muslim immigrants, but Muslim US citizens, prior to taking office as president, in determining what the real intent of Trump's seven, and now six, country entry ban orders was.

    My above comment, of course, does not mean that I am suggesting that Trump supports anti-Semitism (other than against Arabs, who are also a Semitic people), let alone mass murder or genocide.

    Clearly he does not.

    Finally, Nolan, attaches some significance to the fact that Iraq has now been removed from the list of banned countries, ostensibly because it is now willing and able to provide "vetting" information about its citizens to the US that it was not wiling or able to do only six months ago.

    This is despite the fact that, according to Trump's January 27 order, the US hadn't yet decided what additional screening information it needs from the countries affected by the order.

    Are we to believe seriously that Iraq is now able to provide the right information to the US when the US hasn't even yet decided what information it needs?

    And even if Iraq were in fact able to perform this impossible feat to get removed from the banned list, does that justifying barring approximately 100 million people from the other six 99 per cent Muslim countries based only on a presumption that their religion makes then a potential danger to the US?

    How does that square with our Constitution? How does that justify the targeting of US Muslims as potential dangers to America which is undeniably on the increase and has been ever since Trump began his campaign of hate and vilification of all Muslims, not just immigrants, a campaign which he two executive orders have made even more intense?

    Should the courts refuse to look at the effect that Trump's ban's are acrually having on the Constitutional rights, on the very safety, of Muslim US citizens in America itself?

    In 1954, in the famous Brown v Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court looked at the actual effect of school segregation on African-American children.

    Now, nore than 60 years later, should the courts ignore what Trump's entry bans from Muslim countries are actually doing to spreads hatred and increase persecution of US Muslim citizens here in America?

    There is no valid reason to believe that the courts should, or will, ignore reality, however much Nolan might expect them to do so.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-19-2017 at 04:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    First, Nolan argues that the president's power to exclude any classes of immigrants he wants, for any reason that he wants, is virtually unlimited under INA Section 212(f).

    I stand by that statement, but it isn’t necessary in responding to Hawaii’s argument, which is:

    Hawaii claims that Congress has designated specific criteria for determining terrorism-related inadmissibility in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), and the president cannot ignore these provisions and set up new criteria that he prefers.

    See the response in my article.

    Nolan also argues that, in determining the Constitutionality of Trump's latest order under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom ot religion and prohibition against establishment of religion, one should ignore the more than one year history of Trump's tirades against Muslims prior to his taking office as America's second president in this century to be rejected by a majority of the voters in the election.

    This argument is, on its face so absurd, that it does not require further discussion.

    Funny, that’s how I feel about Roger’s position.

    One might just as well argue that Adolf Hitler's long record of attacks against the Jews going back more than a decade before he actually took office as chancellor of Germany in 1933 were irrelevant to determining the purpose of the Nuremberg laws.

    Still comparing Trump to Hitler.

    Let’s assume arguendo that Trump has Muslim hatred in his heart. So what? How does that make the executive order he signed anti-Muslim?

    According to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, President Trump picked countries that have high levels of terrorism. When you focus on real perpetrators and the impact is heavily on one particular religion, that does not create a constitutional problem.

    The point is that the travel ban stands or falls on what it actually does.

    Finally, Nolan, attaches some significance to the fact that Iraq has now been removed from the list of banned countries, ostensibly because it is now willing and able to provide "vetting" information about its citizens to the US that it was not wiling or able to do only six months ago.

    This is despite the fact that, according to Trump's January 27 order, the US hadn't yet decided what additional screening information it needs from the countries affected by the order.

    Are we to believe seriously that Iraq is now able to provide the right information to the US when the US hasn't even yet decided what information it needs?

    It is very unlikely that anyone knew what the Iraqi government would be willing to do when the first EO was being prepared. Trump wanted the EO to be a secret until it was issued. Now, Trump has a pledge of complete cooperation from them. In any case, Trump was supposed to have that information within 30 days of the date on which the first EO was issued. Roger apparently hasn’t read that EO, so I will quote the pertinent provisions here.

    Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

    (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order.

    And even if Iraq were in fact able to perform this impossible feat to get removed from the banned list, does that justifying barring approximately 100 million people from the other six 99 per cent Muslim countries based only on a presumption that their religion makes then a potential danger to the US?

    This one isn’t worth responding to either.

    Nolan Rappaportt
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not surprised that Nolan doesn't want to respond to my two main points above. There is no effective response that can be made.

    Nolan, in effect, is arguing that the courts are bound to accept whatever "Trumped-up" excuse the president and his white nationalist inner circle concoct for announcing to the Muslims of the world, including America, that their religion is not welcome in this country of religious freedom and equality.

    This brings us exactly back to George Orwell's famous novel Animal Farm, where:

    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

    In Donald Trump's America, all religions are equal, except that one of them is less equal than the others.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-15-2017 at 05:31 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Okay, Roger, I will respond to your two points even though I consider them absurd.

    Nolan also argues that, in determining the Constitutionality of Trump's latest order under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom ot religion and prohibition against establishment of religion, one should ignore the more than one year history of Trump's tirades against Muslims prior to his taking office as America's second president in this century to be rejected by a majority of the voters in the election.

    This argument is, on its face so absurd, that it does not require further discussion.

    Funny, that’s how I feel about Roger’s position.

    Professor Kontorovich presents an excellent explanation for why such “evidence of intent” should not be used to interpret a President’s Executive Order, so I will post his article as my response.


    The 9th Circuit’s dangerous and unprecedented use of campaign statements to block presidential policy
    By Eugene Kontorovich
    February 9, 2017

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cee2a976abf4

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has just upheld a nationwide temporary injunction on President Trump’s executive order relating to refugees and visas from certain countries. I think the court’s opinion is weak in most respects, but I will address one of the most interesting and potentially far-reaching aspects.

    Generally, the president has vast discretion in issuing visas. One of the major arguments against the executive order is that while in principle a president can limit immigration from the seven affected countries, it would be unconstitutional for President Trump in particular to do so, because in his case the action is motivated by impermissible religious bias. The central exhibit for this argument is his campaign statements about a “Muslim ban.”

    While the 9th Circuit did not address this at great length, focusing instead on due-process arguments, it did accept the basic validity of the form of the states’ argument. “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions,” wrote the court.

    There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive. The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show “that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history — the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.

    Indeed, a brief examination of cases suggests the idea has been too wild to suggest. For example, the 10th Circuit has rejected the use of a district attorney’s campaign statements against certain viewpoints to show that a prosecution he commenced a few days after office was “bad faith or harassment.” As the court explained, even looking at such statements would “chill debate during campaign[s].” If campaign statements can be policed, the court concluded, it would in short undermine democracy: “the political process for selecting prosecutors should reflect the public’s judgment as to the proper enforcement of the criminal laws.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995).

    There are sound policy reasons for ignoring campaign statements or promises to shed light on subsequent official action. For one, campaign promises are often insincere, designed to appeal to voters. Indeed, they are explicitly instrumental, and their goal is not policy outputs, but election. Moreover, implemented laws or policies are often substantially different from promises, as is the case here.

    Even the use of legislative/administrative history, in its most expansive form, looks only at the actual process – and not the personal background of the legislators, let alone before they took office. As the 9th Circuit itself put it in a discrimination case, “statements by decisionmakers unrelated to the decisional process itself” do not prove a discriminatory motive. McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004).

    The 9th Circuit’s ruling Thursday throws open a huge door to examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions. This introduces more uncertainty and judicial power into legal interpretation than even the most robust use of legislative/administrative history. Without a clear cutoff at assumption of office, attacks on statutes will become deep dives into politicians’ histories.

    More broadly, constitutional structure supports examining only executive statements to interpret executive action. When Trump made his most controversial statements, he was private citizen. He had not sworn to uphold the Constitution, or to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He was, in this sense, a legally differently obligated person. His policies and their relation to the Constitution would presumably be affected by his oath — that is why the Constitution requires it.

    Moreover, the Constitution’s oft-forgotten opinion clause supports disregarding pre-inauguration statements. The Constitution puts at the president’s service the officials of the administration and requires they advise him as asked. What it means here is that the president must be seen as the unitary head of the executive branch and the pinnacle of a process of executive decision-making. That process is the only constitutionally recognized executive process. A candidate’s possible plans or promises are not part of the process. The opinion clause also suggests a president cannot be bound by the oral statements of federal officials (like Rudy Guiliani), especially when not “upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”

    By accepting the use of preelection statements to impeach and limit executive policy, the 9th Circuit is taking a dangerous step. The states’ argument is in essence that Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws.
    This would mean that Trump is automatically disbarred, from the moment of his inauguration, of exercising certain presidential powers, not because of his actions as president, but because of who he is — that is, how he won the presidency.

    At oral argument, the judges asked if Trump could ban travel from all majority-Muslim countries. The question should be reversed. If the plaintiffs cast Trump’s views of immigration as impermissible, by this reasoning he cannot take the otherwise clearly legal action of restricting immigration from any of the world’s 50-odd majority-Muslim countries. This would mean that immigration system as created by Congress — which depends on broad executive discretion — will have essentially been destroyed.

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 03-15-2017 at 05:47 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger's second point.

    And even if Iraq were in fact able to perform this impossible feat to get removed from the banned list, does that justifying barring approximately 100 million people from the other six 99 per cent Muslim countries based only on a presumption that their religion makes then a potential danger to the US?

    Roger, did you read the revised Executive Order? Their presence on the banned list is not based only on a presumption that their religion makes then a potential danger to the US. It includes the following information about the banned countries:

    (e) The following are brief descriptions, taken in part from the Department of State's Country Reports on Terrorism 2015 (June 2016), of some of the conditions in six of the previously designated countries that demonstrate why their nationals continue to present heightened risks to the security of the United States:

    (i) Iran. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and continues to support various terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, and terrorist groups in Iraq. Iran has also been linked to support for al-Qa'ida and has permitted al-Qa'ida to transport funds and fighters through Iran to Syria and South Asia. Iran does not cooperate with the United States in counterterrorism efforts.

    (ii) Libya. Libya is an active combat zone, with hostilities between the internationally recognized government and its rivals. In many parts of the country, security and law enforcement functions are provided by armed militias rather than state institutions. Violent extremist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), have exploited these conditions to expand their presence in the country. The Libyan government provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, but it is unable to secure thousands of miles of its land and maritime borders, enabling the illicit flow of weapons, migrants, and foreign terrorist fighters. The United States Embassy in Libya suspended its operations in 2014.

    (iii) Somalia. Portions of Somalia have been terrorist safe havens. Al-Shabaab, an al-Qa'ida-affiliated terrorist group, has operated in the country for years and continues to plan and mount operations within Somalia and in neighboring countries. Somalia has porous borders, and most countries do not recognize Somali identity documents. The Somali government cooperates with the United States in some counterterrorism operations but does not have the capacity to sustain military pressure on or to investigate suspected terrorists.

    (iv) Sudan. Sudan has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993 because of its support for international terrorist groups, including Hizballah and Hamas. Historically, Sudan provided safe havens for al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups to meet and train. Although Sudan's support to al-Qa'ida has ceased and it provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, elements of core al-Qa'ida and ISIS-linked terrorist groups remain active in the country.

    (v) Syria. Syria has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. The Syrian government is engaged in an ongoing military conflict against ISIS and others for control of portions of the country. At the same time, Syria continues to support other terrorist groups. It has allowed or encouraged extremists to pass through its territory to enter Iraq. ISIS continues to attract foreign fighters to Syria and to use its base in Syria to plot or encourage attacks around the globe, including in the United States. The United States Embassy in Syria suspended its operations in 2012. Syria does not cooperate with the United States' counterterrorism efforts.

    (vi) Yemen. Yemen is the site of an ongoing conflict between the incumbent government and the Houthi-led opposition. Both ISIS and a second group, al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), have exploited this conflict to expand their presence in Yemen and to carry out hundreds of attacks. Weapons and other materials smuggled across Yemen's porous borders are used to finance AQAP and other terrorist activities. In 2015, the United States Embassy in Yemen suspended its operations, and embassy staff were relocated out of the country. Yemen has been supportive of, but has not been able to cooperate fully with, the United States in counterterrorism efforts.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...-united-states

    Nolan Rappaport
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger's second point.

    And even if Iraq were in fact able to perform this impossible feat to get removed from the banned list, does that justifying barring approximately 100 million people from the other six 99 per cent Muslim countries based only on a presumption that their religion makes then a potential danger to the US?

    Roger, did you read the revised Executive Order? Their presence on the banned list is not based only on a presumption that their religion makes then a potential danger to the US. It includes the following information about the banned countries:

    (e) The following are brief descriptions, taken in part from the Department of State's Country Reports on Terrorism 2015 (June 2016), of some of the conditions in six of the previously designated countries that demonstrate why their nationals continue to present heightened risks to the security of the United States:

    (i) Iran. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and continues to support various terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, and terrorist groups in Iraq. Iran has also been linked to support for al-Qa'ida and has permitted al-Qa'ida to transport funds and fighters through Iran to Syria and South Asia. Iran does not cooperate with the United States in counterterrorism efforts.

    (ii) Libya. Libya is an active combat zone, with hostilities between the internationally recognized government and its rivals. In many parts of the country, security and law enforcement functions are provided by armed militias rather than state institutions. Violent extremist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), have exploited these conditions to expand their presence in the country. The Libyan government provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, but it is unable to secure thousands of miles of its land and maritime borders, enabling the illicit flow of weapons, migrants, and foreign terrorist fighters. The United States Embassy in Libya suspended its operations in 2014.

    (iii) Somalia. Portions of Somalia have been terrorist safe havens. Al-Shabaab, an al-Qa'ida-affiliated terrorist group, has operated in the country for years and continues to plan and mount operations within Somalia and in neighboring countries. Somalia has porous borders, and most countries do not recognize Somali identity documents. The Somali government cooperates with the United States in some counterterrorism operations but does not have the capacity to sustain military pressure on or to investigate suspected terrorists.

    (iv) Sudan. Sudan has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993 because of its support for international terrorist groups, including Hizballah and Hamas. Historically, Sudan provided safe havens for al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups to meet and train. Although Sudan's support to al-Qa'ida has ceased and it provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, elements of core al-Qa'ida and ISIS-linked terrorist groups remain active in the country.

    (v) Syria. Syria has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. The Syrian government is engaged in an ongoing military conflict against ISIS and others for control of portions of the country. At the same time, Syria continues to support other terrorist groups. It has allowed or encouraged extremists to pass through its territory to enter Iraq. ISIS continues to attract foreign fighters to Syria and to use its base in Syria to plot or encourage attacks around the globe, including in the United States. The United States Embassy in Syria suspended its operations in 2012. Syria does not cooperate with the United States' counterterrorism efforts.

    (vi) Yemen. Yemen is the site of an ongoing conflict between the incumbent government and the Houthi-led opposition. Both ISIS and a second group, al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), have exploited this conflict to expand their presence in Yemen and to carry out hundreds of attacks. Weapons and other materials smuggled across Yemen's porous borders are used to finance AQAP and other terrorist activities. In 2015, the United States Embassy in Yemen suspended its operations, and embassy staff were relocated out of the country. Yemen has been supportive of, but has not been able to cooperate fully with, the United States in counterterrorism efforts.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...-united-states

    Nolan Rappaport
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I do not see anything in Nolan's argument that contests the accuracy of the District Court of Hawaii's conclusion that the entry bans were in fact motivated by unconstitutional discrimination against American citizens based on their religion, or on the religion of people whom they might wish to invite to visit America.

    He is only arguing that the court, as part of its fact finding, should ignore the mountain of evidence of bias and discrimination against Muslims based on statements Trump made before taking office as president. If the courts are forced to close their eyes to the reality behind certain actions of the other two branches of government based on such artificial distinctions, we might as well not have a judicial system.

    Nolan is in effect arguing that the president has the power to deceive the courts and misrepresent the true reasons for a particular executive action, while forcing the courts to turn a blind eye to reality.

    That is a recipe for dictatorship in America. Back in the dark days of the Chinese exclusion laws, or of the 1924 "national origins" racially discriminatory immigration quotas aimed against Jews, Catholics and most other immigrants who were not from white, Protestant, northern Europe, at least our politicians were more honest about their motives for discriminating against the targeted ethnic/religious groups.

    Trump's administration is now trying to add lies about the motives for the ban onto the invidious constitutional violations that were the ban's obvious intent.

    This would make Trump not only the nation's demagogue in chief, but also its dissembler in chief.

    Having said the above, even if the courts were to rule out Trump's openly and consistently expressed hatred for Muslims in America and around the world during his campaign, there would still be overwhelming reasons for the court's finding of discriminatory intent against the Muslim religion based only on the Trump administration actions since he took office as president, as well as on the discriminatory impact of the ban against American Muslim citizens because of their religion, whether they originate from the banned countries or not.

    Nolan is arguing, not only that the courts should turn a blind eye to the reality of religious discrimination behind the latest version of the Muslim ban order, but that it should accept the administration's alternative reality of a heightened danger to the United States coming from six countries whose citizens to date have never committed a single terrorist act in the United States that anyone has been able to identify.

    With regard to refugees, the administration's justification for a worldwide ban is even less substantial and more fraudulent than in the case of the six 99 percent Muslim country bans.

    It is based entirely on speculation and what another federal court has accurately called a "nightmare scenario".

    Trump's only defense in the case of banning refugees is that the discrimination is not only intended against Muslims, but against all non-white immigrants.

    That indeed may be the most accurate "defense" for the ban that Trump has available.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-16-2017 at 01:36 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: