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

Muslim Ban Continues Long Tradition of Racial/Religious Discrimination in US (and German) Immigration and Citizenship Law. Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
I have written extensively about various legal issues arising from Donald Trump's Muslim entry ban orders (often misleadingly and euphemistically referred to as a "travel ban", despite the fact that the nearly 200 million people in six countries with more than 99 per cent Muslim populations who are targeted by his latest order are free to travel anywhere they want - just not to the United States!).

In my previous comments, I have focused on the entry ban orders as they affect Muslims in particular, since that is obviously the main purpose of the orders, in view of the fact that less than one percent of the six countries' citizens affected belong to any other religious group or practice any other faith. Moreover, the lawsuits in US federal courts challenging the Muslim entry ban orders, in including IRAP v. Trump now before the Supreme Court, are based on the claim that the ban orders infringe on the Constitutional rights to freedom of religion of American Muslim citizens.

However, Muslim US citizens constitute only about one percent of the total US population. Does this mean, therefore, that any comment on the issue of the legal validity, or lack of it, concerning Donald Trump's Muslim ban orders are necessarily written only from the standpoint of advocacy on behalf of the interests of a small and limited group of people in America, namely American Muslims?

Obviously, such a limited view of the significance of the Muslim ban orders would be untenable. Opposition to the infamous Chinese exclusion laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to the ban on entry to America by Jewish immigrants trying to escape Hitler's gas chambers and ovens during the Holocaust, to the incarceration of Japanese Americans during WW2, and to the segregation laws against African-Americans, was based on the fact that injustice, discrimination and persecution against any group of people based on their race or religion affects the rights and freedom of all the people of America.

This comment, therefore, will look at the president's Muslim ban orders, not just from the standpoint of their effect on people who happen to belong to this major world religion, but rather in the context of America's long history of legal enactments based on discrimination against racial and religious groups, as well as the influence that American legislation in this area had on laws adopted by one other country against its own minorities (one in particular) in another country, Germany, during the 1930's.

In doing so, I will refer to an article dealing with this subject by one of America's most distinguished and respected scholars, Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs. His article, dated March 19, is called:

The Muslim ban and American history.

This article should be required reading for everyone who is seriously interested in the legal foundation for and long legal history leading up to Donald Trump's Muslim ban executive orders.

http://csd.columbia.edu/2017/03/19/t...rican-history/

Sachs begins:

"Donald Trump's revised executive order to bar entry into the United States from six Muslim-majority countries is the latest salvo in America's latest culture wars over race and American identity. As a matter of national security and law, the policy makes no sense, as the US District Court for the District of Hawaii has made clear."

To the contrary, Sachs writes, Trump's objective in the Muslim ban executive orders is:

" ...making Muslims a target of hatred among working class white voters, a strategy with a long and successful history..."

At the outset, the decision of the District Court of Hawaii in the revised Muslim ban case, which Sachs refers to in above, contains a detailed discussion the reasons why, when Constitutional rights are involved, such as, in this case, freedom of religion and equal protection of the law for Muslim-American citizens, well settled case law allows the Courts to go behind the face of an executive order or decision in order to determine with it was motivated in whole or in part by impermissible bias.

But even if the strained and untenable argument which had been made by some commentators that the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, a visa denial case, precludes court interference with an executive decision or order refusing a visa or barring entry to the US if the decision or order is facially legitimate and bona fide - an argument shaky enough at the outset since the above Mandel "doctrine" was only dictum, because the issue of good faith in the denial decision was not before that court or involved in its decision - it is clear from Trump's Muslim ban orders, both first and second, that they were not even facially legitimate.

The disconnect between the stated reason for these orders on their face, namely that further review of "vetting" procedures was needed for visitors and immigrants from the targeted countries, and the actual action taken by the orders allegedly intended to accomplish the purpose of more enhanced "vetting", namely banning the entire population, or close to it, of these countries from entering the US while the enhanced "vetting" procedures are being drawn up is so glaring and absurd, as to raise serious doubts as the the legitimacy and good faith of these orders purely by looking them on their face only, as some commentators claim that the non-legally binding Mandel dictum mandates the courts to do.

In a forthcoming comment, I will go into more detail about America's long history of legal measures discriminating against various racial and religious immigrant groups, as Sachs describes it, as well as how, as Sachs also explains America's history of legal discrimination against immigrants on the basis of race and religion also influenced lawmakers in Germany during the 1930's to develop legislation against the Jews and other targets of the regime.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law
algaselex@gmail.com




Submit "Muslim Ban Continues Long Tradition of Racial/Religious Discrimination in US (and German) Immigration and Citizenship Law. Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Muslim Ban Continues Long Tradition of Racial/Religious Discrimination in US (and German) Immigration and Citizenship Law. Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Muslim Ban Continues Long Tradition of Racial/Religious Discrimination in US (and German) Immigration and Citizenship Law. Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Muslim Ban Continues Long Tradition of Racial/Religious Discrimination in US (and German) Immigration and Citizenship Law. Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Muslim Ban Continues Long Tradition of Racial/Religious Discrimination in US (and German) Immigration and Citizenship Law. Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Muslim Ban Continues Long Tradition of Racial/Religious Discrimination in US (and German) Immigration and Citizenship Law. Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Muslim Ban Continues Long Tradition of Racial/Religious Discrimination in US (and German) Immigration and Citizenship Law. Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 07-06-2017 at 12:04 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

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: