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

Supreme Court will not consider evidence of religious discrimination in its travel ban decision. By Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry


CNN.COM














President Donald Trump filed an appeal with the Supreme Court from adverse decisions in two circuit courts on the revised version of his travel ban Executive Order, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”


If the Court decides this appeal on its merits, which I do not expect the Court to do, the most controversial issue will be the claim that Trump is using a national security reason for the travel ban to cover up his real purpose, religious discrimination, and, therefore, the Executive Order violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.


Even if Trump had hostility towards the Muslim religion in his heart when he decided to write the travel ban, it is not the reason he stated in the Executive Order, and the travel ban opponents have not established a legitimate basis for rejecting the stated reason.


The test is whether permitting the banned aliens to enter the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.


Trump issued the travel ban order pursuant to section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 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.

May not need to state a reason at all.

In Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Court observed that, without exception, it has sustained Congress’ “plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens.” And, “The power of Congress .... to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.” (Page 408 U. S. 766)

Read more at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0f078efd9894c

Published originally on Huffington Post.

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.

Submit "Supreme Court will not consider evidence of religious discrimination in its travel ban decision.   By Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "Supreme Court will not consider evidence of religious discrimination in its travel ban decision.   By Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "Supreme Court will not consider evidence of religious discrimination in its travel ban decision.   By Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "Supreme Court will not consider evidence of religious discrimination in its travel ban decision.   By Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "Supreme Court will not consider evidence of religious discrimination in its travel ban decision.   By Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "Supreme Court will not consider evidence of religious discrimination in its travel ban decision.   By Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "Supreme Court will not consider evidence of religious discrimination in its travel ban decision.   By Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan's article says little or nothing about the Supreme Court's rule, set forth in Mandel (1972) that in order to avoid judicial scrutiny of an executive (or, by extension, presidential) decision to refuse a visa to one person (or, by extension, ban almost 200 million members of a religion which the president seems reluctant to treat on an equal basis with other religions in America, as required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution), the decision (or order) must be facially legitimate and bona fide.

    Assuming for the purposes of argument that the Muslim ban order is facially legitimate (which is itself open to question - would an order banning all citizens of Israel regardless of religion from entering the US on any grounds be facially legitimate - or would it be struck down as impermissible discrimination against the Jewish religion on its face?) the question still remains whether Trump's ban orders were issued in good faith.

    Almost by definition, this is a factual question, and one which, unless one looks at the Mandel decision as only useless verbiage, the Supreme Court has the power - and the obligation, if America is to remain a nation governed by the rule of law rather than the religious prejudices of a strongman - to look into.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-01-2017 at 03:08 PM 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: