Late Friday afternoon, a Seattle Judge and George W Bush appointee, put out a nationwide restraining order stopping further use of the President Trump Executive Order on Illegal Immigration. From the local Fox affiliate.
The hearing came about after the Attorneys General of Washington and Minnesota filed a lawsuit seeking to halt President Donald Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order restricting immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. It also placed restrictions on refugees entering the country.
U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart, a Seattle native who is an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the state proved that local economy and citizens have suffered irreparable harm and an injunction should be applied.
Meanwhile, earlier in the day, a Federal Court Judge in Mass had a different viewpoint and declined to renew a TRO on the Executive Order. From CBS news:
A federal judge in Boston has refused to extend a temporary injunction against President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton late Friday declined to renew an order prohibiting the detention or removal of persons as part of Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigrants.
And from CBS also:
Gorton’s ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, especially since Gorton wrote that Mr. Trump has “broad powers” to decide who can enter the country. By denying the stay, the city must enforce Trump’s order when the temporary block expires Sunday.
This sets up a battle that will eventually be resolved at the SCOTUS. May Judge Gorsuch be on the Court by that time.
What Legal Authority does President Trump have on illegal immigration and refuges?
Opponents of the Immigration Ban are challenging President Trump’s authority to act on immigration. But what does actual law and precedent say about President Trumps authority?
The US Constitution did not use the word “immigration” when written. This has allowed proponents of immigration to make various claims that misrepresent what is allowed or not.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does empower Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. But to establish the Rule of Naturalization, Congress must first be able to determine upon what grounds a foreigner may enter the US, and then to stay legally.
Congress has passed numerous laws and Acts in the Modern Era regulating immigration. They include:
- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
- Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986
- Refugee Act of 1980 which established laws pertaining to refugees
Clearly, the US Congress has acted and passed Immigration Laws in the past. So how does this affect President Trump’s authority to act? For that, we look to other Federal Statutes.
8 US Code 1185 is the law providing authority for the President to act. Among other things, it cites:
(a) Restrictions and prohibitions – Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful –
1) for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe;
The key point of this section is the “Unless otherwise ordered by the President” statement. This provides the authority to act. But that is not all. Let’s just take a look at Presidential Orders.
Presidential Executive Orders on Immigration
Presidential E.O.’s on Immigration have generally focused upon “refugee status” for admission into the US. Limits have been increased in different countries as a President has felt warranted. Some, but not of the following are examples of such increases.
- President George Herbert Walker Bush, who in 1990 announced a blanket deferral of deportations for 1.5 million spouses and children of unauthorized people.rs on immigration policy by Republican presidents:
- 1956. President Dwight Eisenhower allows 923 orphans to settle in the U.S.
- 1956–58. Eisenhower allows 31,915 Hungarian refugees to stay after Soviet invasion.
- 1959–72. Presidents Eisenhower through Richard Nixon let 621,403 Cuban exiles stay.
- 1977–82. Presidents Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and Reagan, let 15,000 Ethiopians stay.
- 1981–87. President Reagan allow 7,000 Polish refugees stay after Soviet-led crackdown.
- 1987. President Reagan allows 100,000 children of non-citizens to stay who were not affected by the 1986 law he signed granting amnesty to 3 million immigrants.
- 1989. President Bush allows 80,000 Chinese students stay after Tianenmen Square, which he formalized a year later suspending deportations and granting work permits.
This does not mean that a President does not have the power to restrict immigration from these areas. In fact, both Dem President’s, Carter and Obama have done just that.
After the Embassy seizure and the taking of hostages in 1979, President Carter imposed sanctions against Iran. This included the cancellation of VISA’s for Iranian citizens.
In 2011, Obama used Obama used section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to stop “immigrants or nonimmigrants” from emigrating to the U.S. under a broader ban instituted by the United Nations in 2011. The Order covered anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.
So there is absolute precedence to go with US laws and regulations that back up President Trump’s ability to issue Executive Orders. The judges ruling against President Trump are therefore ignoring established law and regulations.
What is the purpose of these lawsuits?
The proponents of the immigration lawsuits and their attorneys know that Trump is acting lawfully. So why do they file the lawsuits to stop, especially since the Courts will eventually rule against them?
This is nothing more than political expediency. The filers are acting consistently with liberal politicians who want nothing more than to distract from the true problems of the US and how President Trump is moving to eliminate those issues.
These people are part of the Neo-Liberalism Globalism movement. They seek to continue the “globalism” movement any way that they can, while trying to stop the rising “populism” in the US and other countries.
The plan is to focus upon anything that President Trump attempts to do, delaying the implementation of his changes and attempting to delegitimize President Trump. That is the only possible tactic left that they can use to prevent the coming changes.
The fact is that Donald Trump has already “cancelled” all visa’s and other documents that would allow entry into the US. It is an authority that he has and that has been used by other President’s in previous instances.
A Court has no authority to override President Trump’s authority to act. And since he has cancelled the visas, a Court cannot overturn his action and declare that the visas are once again valid.
The DOJ, since there are competing rulings, should simply follow the MA judge and continue the ban. Let the proponents of those trying to cancel the EO continue and force the action up to the Appeals Court and then the SCOTUS. While that is going on, the Trump Administration continues working on the Vetting Process. Once it is completed and put into place, it renders the Court actions of those seeking to overturn the Executive Order moot. Overtaken by events.