Source: https://knowyourconstitution.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/titan-v-titan-president-trump-and-the-federal-courts-face-off-over-the-temporary-travel-ban/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:17:46+00:00

Document:
On January 27, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” which provides a 90-day suspension of entry into the United States for individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen on account of their status as posing a heightened risk of terrorism. It was the US Congress, under President Barack Obama, which had assigned this status to those seven countries.
The Executive Order was issued after the President determined that “deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States,” and that our Nation accordingly must take additional steps “to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.” [see the text of the Executive Order]. Invoking his constitutional authority to control the entry of aliens into this country and congressionally-delegated authority to “suspend the entry of any class of aliens” whose entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” the President, by issuing the Executive Order, has directed a temporary 90-day suspension of entry for individuals from seven countries previously identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism by Congress or the Executive Branch; a temporary 120-day suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program; and a suspension of entry of Syrian nationals as refugees until the President determines that measures are in place “to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.” Exec. Order §§ 3(c), (5)(a), (c).
Two days ago, on February 4, a federal district judge in Seattle issued a ruling – a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO), aka, an injunction – that temporarily blocks the Executive Order. The court order prevents the president’s Executive Order from going into effect and allows the immigration to move forward.
Minnesota joined the suit with Washington and since the TRO was issued, seven other states have decided to join and challenge the “travel ban.” They want it overturned. These seven states include Washington, Virginia, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, Michigan, and California.
This article will explain why the Executive Order and the temporary travel ban is legal and appropriate and why I think it will ultimately be upheld.
Second, the travel ban is a proper exercise of the President’s power to issue Executive Orders to force the government to enforce laws already on the books (such as the one discussed above), his war power as Commander-in-Chief (we are currently engaged in a War on Terror, as admitted so by our very own Congress and presidents), his Foreign Policy powers, and his National Security Powers.
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
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. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e ) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
Section 217(a)(12) of INA, 8 USC 1187(a)(12), which is the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (and extended in 2016) and which is highlighted and italicized above in the text of the Executive Order, identifies seven countries which are excluded from the waiver program. These seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. These countries were identified under the Act, by the Obama administration, because they present a heightened risk of terrorism and they cannot and do not provide proper information on its nationals so that the United States can vet those coming into our country. A different section of the Order refers to Syria specifically, because it calls for the indefinite suspension of Syrian refugee admissions, until such time as the President believes security concerns have been adequately addressed. The President’s Executive Order does not seek to make new law. Rather, it clarifies existing law and aligns it with national security concerns. The Executive Order addresses the basic requirement for an alien to enter and reside in the United States – a verifiable visa.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1101 et seq., an alien may not enter and permanently reside in the United States without a visa. See §1181(a). President Trump is using the visa requirement to introduce proper vetting measures as it relates to those coming in from countries previously identified as engaging in terrorism and being unable to provide adequate visas. Without proper visas, the government (and the innocent citizens of the United States) do not know what type of citizens they are getting and furthermore, will be unable to keep tabs on them. According the INA, visas must ensure that the individual seeking to move to the US is not inadmissible for a number of reasons, including that they innocent of terrorist activities. The seven countries covered by the Executive Order cannot ensure that its citizens meet our threshold. Hence, the president has issued a temporary ban for 90 days in order that proper assurances can be provided.
So, to be clear about the President’s Executive Order: It bars Syrian refugees indefinitely and blocks citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entry into the US for 90 days. The provisions of the Executive Order will force the State Department and Homeland Security to establish proper vetting procedures by the 90-day period (the temporary ban) for those countries so that authorities can keep the United States safe. The exact process by which the president seeks to establish proper vetting procedures is explained clearly in the Order.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, prohibits admission into the United States of a foreign national not in possession of a valid visa, with a few limited exceptions. One such exception is the Visa Waiver Program (VWP or Program) which, for a number of years, was a pilot program (VWPP). That pilot program, which was first enacted in 1986, was designed to allow nationals from certain countries to enter the United States under limited conditions, for a short period of time, without first obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad. On October 30, 2000, President Clinton signed the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, making the program permanent. See Section 217. The VWP, administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the State Department, utilizes a risk-based, multi-layered approach to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals, and other mala fide actors from traveling to the United States. This approach incorporates regular, national-level risk assessments concerning the impact of each program country’s participation in the VWP on U.S. national security and law enforcement interests. It also includes comprehensive vetting of individual VWP travelers prior to their departure for the United States, upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry, and during any subsequent air travel within the United States, among other things.
The VWP authorizes the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to waive the requirement of a valid nonimmigrant visa for visitors for business (B-1) or pleasure (B-2) who are seeking to enter the United States from certain countries for not more than 90 days. In 2003, 13.5 million visitors entered the United States under this Program, constituting almost one-half of all visitors that year. The main advocates of the VWPP were the Department of State (DOS), the American tourist industry, and the business community. DOS advanced a two-fold incentive for the program: (1) eliminating the requirement for nationals of high volume application, low denial rate countries to apply for nonimmigrant visitor and business visas at the consulates, thus also eliminating processing paperwork and freeing consular resources for other activities; and (2) fostering better relations with reciprocity countries that allow U.S. citizens to also enter without a visa. The U.S. tourist industry was enthusiastic in its support of the program, as it correctly envisioned that millions of tourists would take advantage of the opportunity to travel to the United States on the spur of the moment without the time-consuming inconvenience of having to obtain nonimmigrant visas in advance of travel. The business community also welcomed the idea that people could enter the United States on short notice to conduct business without first applying for a nonimmigrant visa.6 For the most part, while the VWPP had been enthusiastically received, the Program was also the subject of a critical report issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General. Testifying before a House subcommittee on May 5, 1999, the Inspector General noted that the Pilot Program could facilitate illegal entry because visitors from VWPP designated countries avoid the pre-screening that consular officers normally perform on visa applicants. It was also pointed out that some terrorists and criminals intercepted at the time of inspection were attempting to enter under the VWPP. Another problem, according to the Inspector General, was government employee corruption involving bribery and trafficking in fraudulent or blank passports and other documents.
At press time, 27 countries are designated participants They include Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 18 San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. A small number of countries that were once designated VWP countries have been disqualified from the VWP. Belgium is currently in provisional status because of concerns about the integrity of its nonmachine-readable passports and issues associated with the reporting of lost or stolen passports. Qualifying countries are designated by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, based upon that country’s satisfaction of a number of requirements, including not issuing passports to persons who pose a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States, having a low non-immigrant visa refusal rate for the two years prior to designation, and the status of the country as one that issues its citizens machine-readable passports (“MRP”) that satisfy the internationally accepted standard for machine readability.
So, Article I of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to make all “necessary and proper” rules to legislate and define our nation’s immigration policy. Because this authority was delegated from the States to the federal government, the federal government is sovereign on this topic; that is, its authority is supreme. The States of Washington and Minnesota may think it has the power to interfere with the government’s rightful role – to somehow claim that its interests supersede the federal government’s decision with respect to the nation as a whole, but it is the government which is given deference.
Article II of the US Constitution provides the president with his powers. Article II, Section 1 gives the President the authority to enforce the laws passed by Congress. The president, therefore, is tasked to make sure our immigration laws are enforced. Article II, Section 2 gives the president additional powers over immigration – under his war powers.
Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution reads: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices….” When the Congress voted almost unanimously to authorize military force to fight the war on terror (AMU of September 14, 2001), it was taken as a declaration of war. As soon as our country engaged in military action, and especially with a declaration of war, the president holds the title of Commander-in-chief and has, on top of his executive powers, vast war powers.
The President also has Foreign Policy powers and National Security powers. (The State Department and Homeland Security Departments are executive cabinet offices under his control).
The Immigration and Naturality Act of 1952, codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. Chapter 12), also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, restricts immigration into the United States. It expressly authorizes the president to suspend entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, or place any restrictions on their entry as he deems necessary or appropriate, whenever he finds that such aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the country. There isn’t even a requirement that the country be at war or involved in any particular conflict. Congress knowingly, expressly, granted the President of the United States with plenary power to suspend or restrict aliens, or any class of aliens, into the country.
The Immigration and Naturality Act of 1952 was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, and was signed by a Democrat president, Harry S. Truman.
The provision gives presidents broad authority to ban individual immigrants or groups of immigrants. Presidents haven’t hesitated to use it. In modern times, Barack Obama invoked it 19 times, Bill Clinton 12 times, George W. Bush six times and Ronald Reagan five times. George H.W. Bush invoked it once.
Indeed, throughout our history, there have been a number of instances in which the United States has curtailed or suspended the immigration of people from certain regions or nations, both during times of war and times of peace. In several circumstances, these laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court, confirming the power of the Federal Government to regulate immigration based on the national interest. The text of the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear – the President has broad discretion to keep certain people out of the United States.
Not long after the American colonies fought the British for their independence and then established the new union (“a more perfect union”; created by the adoption of the US Constitution), the French had their own revolution. (1789-1799). The Federalists, led by Washington and then John Adams, detested the French Revolution of 1789 (1789-1799) because it led to mob rule and confiscation of property. The Republicans, which represented a new party started by Thomas Jefferson to oppose the Federalists, supported the French Revolution for its democratic ideals.
Amidst this climate, in 1798, President Adams signed the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts into law to help him deal with repercussions of the French Revolution and also the Quasi-War with France. The Acts, readily adopted by a Federalist-dominated Congress, were intended to make the United States more secure from alien (foreign) spies and domestic traitors. The acts allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States” at any time and any male citizen of a hostile nation during times of war. The two most notable of these acts were the Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends Act.
The Alien Enemies Act provided that once war had been declared, all male citizens of an enemy nation could be arrested, detained, and deported. If war had broken out, this act could have expelled many of the estimated 25,000 French citizens then living in the United States. But the country did not go to war, and the law was never used. It was later used, however, to justify FDR’s rounding up of Japanese-American citizens during World War II.
The Alien Friends Act authorized the president to deport any non-citizen suspected of plotting against the government during either wartime or peacetime. This law could have resulted in the mass expulsion of new immigrants. The act was limited to two years, but no alien was ever deported under it.
In 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Law, which prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers. The Chinese Exclusion Act was a vital test for the power of the federal government to restrict immigration. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1889 case of Chae Chan Ping v. United States. In the opinion of the court, Justice Stephen Johnson Field wrote, “The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments.” (The act was repealed by Congress in 1943).
The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans. It is interesting to note the phrase “polygamists or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” (The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists). Muslims at that time were furious over the Immigration Act of 1907 specifically because of this phrase because, as they pointed out, that phrase would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States. Muslims believe in polygamy. They may not actively practice it, but every faithful Muslim believes in the practice; the religion allows it.
In 1917, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1917 (aka, the Literacy Act or the Asiatic Barred Zone Act). In addition to barring “homosexuals”, “idiots”, “feeble-minded persons”, “criminals”, “epileptics”, “insane persons”, alcoholics, “professional beggars”, all persons “mentally or physically defective,” polygamists, anarchists, and people over the age of 16 who were illiterate, this act barred immigration from Southeast Asia, India, and the Middle East.
Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527 were signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Citing the Alien and Sedition Acts as precedence, these proclamations restricted the entry and naturalization of Japanese, Germans, and Italians respectively. Later, FDR would bar entry into the US of the Jews who were seeking asylum from the genocidal Nazi regime.
On December 12, 1979, a federal judge, Joyce Hens Green, initially ruled the order unconstitutional, but her ruling was reversed on appeal. On Sept. 22, 1980, the Times, citing an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman, reported that by that date, nearly 60,000 students had registered as required, about 430 had been deported and 5,000 had left voluntarily.
In October 1985, President Ronald Reagan temporarily barred entry to officers or employees of the Cuban government or the Communist Party of Cuba who held diplomatic or official passports. Focused on stamping out communism, he also targeted officers of the Cuban-backed Nicaraguan government and the ruling Sandinista National Liberation Front.
As mentioned above, President George H. Bush used the provision (8 USC §1182) only once. His sole use of the provision followed a 1991 a coup in Haiti that spurred thousands of people to flee on rickety boats and head for the U.S. Hundreds died at sea, but many were rescued, overwhelming processing centers set up at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and aboard Coast Guard cutters. Rather than allow Haitians to enter the United States and be screened, Bush issued an order “to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens by sea and the interdiction of any covered vessel carrying such aliens,” allowing the U.S. to intercept the boats and send the migrants back.
President Bill Clinton used the law to block perpetrators in the ethnic conflicts that erupted in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, targeting people responsible for the repression of civilians in Kosovo, along with those obstructing democracy in Yugoslavia or lending support to the Yugoslav government and the Republic of Serbia. In 1994, he also suspended individuals and their immediate family members who were said to formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impeded war-torn Liberia’s transition to democracy. Similar suspensions were imposed on conflict-ravaged Sierra Leone in 2000.
President George W. Bush temporarily barred foreign government officials who were responsible for failing to combat human trafficking. He also blocked those whose actions threatened Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions and transition to a multiparty democracy. Amid concerns that Syria was fomenting instability in Lebanon, Syrian and Lebanese officials deemed responsible for policies or actions that threatened Lebanon’s sovereignty were also barred from entering the U.S.
To re-cap, several US presidents have banned aliens and have, in fact, targeted certain aliens in particular. Chinese were banned by Chester A. Arthur (ethnic class). Teddy Roosevelt banned anarchists (political). FDR banned Jews and Jimmy Carter banned Iranians (because of the Embassy takeover). Ronald Reagan banned Cubans (ethnic class). Clinton banned junta members of Sierra Leone and Haiti (politics). George Bush banned government officials from Zimbabwe and Belarus (politics). Even Obama banned people from Iraq.
Sovereignty is an important concept and probably the one most ignored in this current debate on the Executive Order’s temporary travel ban (from aliens from terrorist nations).
Sovereignty refers to the authority of a state to govern itself and to make all necessary laws and policies for the benefit of its physical jurisdiction and for its citizens. It’s most critical function is to keep the state safe and secure and to ensure its continued existence as an independent state. In other words, its most important function is national security. Immigration is intimately tied to the function of national security.
National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliaments, should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of “national” crises through a variety of power projections, such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on.
Those who have not done so recently would benefit from studying what the United States Constitution says about the federal government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense. Most Americans had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution when they were children, so they are aware that one of the purposes of the document was to “provide for the common defense.” But they are not aware of the extent to which the document shows the Founders’ concern for national security.
In brief, the Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.
National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.
National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century. But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article 4, Section 4 states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.
In discussing the topic of national security, it is important to understand some of the concepts that the term incorporates.
The first is the concept of power. It can best be defined as a nation’s possession of control of its sovereignty and destiny. It implies some degree of control of the extent to which outside forces can harm the country. Hard, or largely military, power is about control, while soft power is mainly about influence—trying to persuade others, using methods short of war, to do something.
Instruments of power exist along a spectrum, from using force on one end to diplomatic means of persuasion on the other. Such instruments include the armed forces; law enforcement and intelligence agencies; and various governmental agencies dedicated to bilateral and public diplomacy, foreign aid, and international financial controls. Variables of power include military strength, economic capacity, the will of the government and people to use power, and the degree to which legitimacy—either in the eyes of the people or in the eyes of other nations or international organizations—affects how power is wielded. The measure of power depends not only on hard facts, but also on perceptions of will and reputation.
Another term to understand properly is military strength. This term refers to military capacity and the capabilities of the armed forces, and it is a capacity that may not actually be used. It often is understood as a static measure of the power of a country, but in reality, military strength is a variable that is subject to all sorts of factors, including the relative strength of opponents, the degree to which it is used effectively, or whether it is even used at all.
Force is the use of a military or law enforcement capacity to achieve some objective. It is the actual use of strength and should not be equated with either strength or power per se. Using force unwisely or unsuccessfully can diminish one’s power and strength. By the same token, using it effectively can enhance power. Force is an instrument of power just as a tool or some other device would be, but unlike institutional instruments like the armed forces, its use in action is what distinguishes it from static instruments of strength like military capacity. Thus, force should be understood narrowly as an applied instrument of coercion.
Finally, there is national defense. Strictly speaking, this refers to the ability of the armed forces to defend the sovereignty of the nation and the lives of its people; however, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the mission of homeland security—using domestic as well as military instruments to defend the nation from terrorist and other attacks either inside or outside the country—has come to be understood as an element of national defense.
On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Over 3,000 people were killed horrifically, including more than 400 police officers and firefighters. The Twin Towers collapsed, several surrounding buildings collapsed as well, and one section of the Pentagon was destroyed. Just like the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was a day that will live in infamy. It will continue to define certain human beings, certain groups, a fanatic religious ideology as pure evil.
[Osama bin Laden would issue a “Letter to America” in November 2002, explicitly stating that al-Qaeda’s motives for their attacks included: US support of Israel, support for the “attacks against Muslims” in Somalia, support of Philippines against Muslims in the Moro conflict, support for Israeli “aggression” against Muslims in Lebanon, support of Russian “atrocities against Muslims” in Chechnya, pro-American governments in the Middle East (who “act as your agents”) being against Muslim interests, support of Indian “oppression against Muslims” in Kashmir, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq].
In the months that followed, the US learned just how barbaric the attackers are. On January 23, 2002, Daniel Pearl, a reporter with the Wall Street Journal, left his apartment in Karachi, Pakistan for an interview. He had temporarily set up a residence in Karachi to report on America’s War on Terror. He was following a lead. He would never return that day. He was kidnapped and beheaded, with the captors turning over a 3-minute videotape of his grisly demise. President Bush watched the video. After the severed Pearl’s head, they cut up his body into ten pieces and put it into the shopping bags. They walked around with the bags to find a place to bury them, until they finally dug a hole just outside the building where he was killed. The floor of the room was then washed and they held sunset prayer there.
On Sept. 14, 2001, the U.S. Congress in effect declared war when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as a joint resolution. The vote was overwhelmingly one-sided. In the House, the vote was 420 Ayes, 1 Nay, and 10 Not Voting. In the Senate, the vote was 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 2 Present/Not Voting. Rep. Barbara Lee was the nay vote in the House.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president of the United States to notify Congress within 48 hours of ordering US armed forces for a military operation overseas. Those forces cannot operate in a deployed status for more than 60 days. Combat military operations lasting longer than that time frame require a congressional Declaration of War OR an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Bush almost unanimously got that AUMF from Congress in 2001 when he declared the war on terrorism.
The 2001 AUMF passed by Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks authorized the President to use force, if necessary, to seek retribution (seek justice) for the attacks on 9/11. Specifically, the AUMF states: “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” In other words, with the AUMF, the President has been given a free hand in conducting the War on Terrorism and also in identifying the “enemy” or “enemies.” All he has to do his tie a person to an “organization” such as al-Qaeda and make a case that the person in some way “aided” the terrorists or will pose a threat by possibly or potentially engaging in future terrorist acts. [Note: There is no exception made for American citizens. There is no distinction between persons on American soil or in other countries].
Congress controls the decision to wage war in another way. It provides the funding. Congress funds the war. And without fail, Congress has provided funding for the War on Terror since 2001. Again, once the country is at war, the president assumes almost plenary war powers (consistent with the Constitution, of course) and the nation goes into self-preservation and survival mode. In 2002, President Bush asked Congress for a separate Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the Iraqi War, which he received.
In 2012, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, like other versions of the bill before it, specified the budget and expenditures of the US Dept. of Defense. A version of the bill had passed for 55 years. However, this bill was a bit different. It contained provisions that many found extremely troubling.
The most controversial provisions were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” which declared that the “battlefield” in the War on Terror also included the United States itself. It authorized the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including US citizens (termed “belligerents”) arrested on American soil.
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
With the NDAA, which has been re-upped for fiscal year 2017, we see the president enlarging his war powers. We see that he acknowledges that the war on terror has already come to our homeland.
In 2014, ISIS (The Islamic State) was gaining power and President Obama lacked a strategy to deal with it. At the end of the year, House Speaker John Boehner advised: “I would urge the president to submit a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) regarding our efforts to defeat and to destroy ISIL.” In that demand, Boehner was echoing constitutional scholar and then-presidential hopeful, Senator Ted Cruz and strict constitutionalist Rand Paul. Senator Cruz asserted that “initiating new military hostilities in a sustained basis in Iraq obligates the president to go back to Congress and to make the case to seek congressional authorization” and Senator Rand Paul said, “I believe the President must come to Congress to begin a war and that Congress has a duty to act. Right now, this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it.” And so, in February 2015, President Obama asked Congress for that authorization. The US had already been bombing ISIS for six months. Ignoring the advice of Boehner, Cruz, and Paul, the White House claimed it already enjoyed the legal right to wage war under the 2001 AUMF and thus didn’t need the new authorization. But still, the White House went ahead and asked. It’s proposed AUMF would authorize force against ISIS, but only for three years. Congress never granted that AUMF, but it did go ahead and fund military actions.
Again, we note that the War on Terror is enlarging and in fact, as we learn from the events unfolding in the Middle East, the terrorist network is organizing, gaining power, and poised take over several regions. We see and that the United States is still very much determined to contain the growing evil that threatens the freedom and security of her citizens and of the world.
The case upheld a law excluding certain Americans (American citizens, to be clear) from areas in the United States on account of national security. It found that although there was discrimination on account of nationality, which would subject that law to the most stringent of judicial scrutiny, the policy survived that scrutiny because national security required it.
We cannot forget that our country suffered an attack perhaps more horrific than Pearl Harbor on 9/11, as ordinary citizens were targeted in skyscrapers rather than military personnel. And although President Bush and his Homeland Security Department managed to keep us safe in our homeland during his two terms, President Obama and his Homeland Security team could not. In fact, as the world seemed to explode in Islamic attacks, so did our country. It seems quite clear to most people that terrorism is on the rise and that we need to ramp up both our offense and defense in this War on Terrorism.
The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a “Military Area,” contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that, after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner’s loyalty to the United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the importance of the constitutional question involved caused us to grant certiorari.
It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.
…..whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense.
One of the series of orders and proclamations, a curfew order, which, like the exclusion order here, was promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 9066, subjected all persons of Japanese ancestry in prescribed West Coast military areas to remain in their residences from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. As is the case with the exclusion order here, that prior curfew order was designed as a “protection against espionage and against sabotage.” In Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), we sustained a conviction obtained for violation of the curfew order. The Hirabayashi conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Congressional Act and the same basic executive and military orders, all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers of espionage and sabotage.
The 1942 Act was attacked in the Hirabayashi case as an unconstitutional delegation of power; it was contended that the curfew order and other orders on which it rested were beyond the war powers of the Congress, the military authorities, and of the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army, and, finally, that to apply the curfew order against none but citizens of Japanese ancestry amounted to a constitutionally prohibited discrimination solely on account of race. To these questions, we gave the serious consideration which their importance justified. We upheld the curfew order as an exercise of the power of the government to take steps necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage in an area threatened by Japanese attack.
In the light of the principles, we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the time they did.True, exclusion from the area in which one’s home is located is a far greater deprivation than constant confinement to the home from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Nothing short of apprehension by the proper military authorities of the gravest imminent danger to the public safety can constitutionally justify either. But exclusion from a threatened area, no less than curfew, has a definite and close relationship to the prevention of espionage and sabotage. The military authorities, charged with the primary responsibility of defending our shores, concluded that curfew provided inadequate protection and ordered exclusion. They did so, as pointed out in our Hirabayashi opinion, in accordance with Congressional authority to the military to say who should, and who should not, remain in the threatened areas.
In this case, the petitioner challenges the assumptions upon which we rested our conclusions in the Hirabayashi case. He also urges that, by May, 1942, when Order No. 34 was promulgated, all danger of Japanese invasion of the West Coast had disappeared. After careful consideration of these contentions, we are compelled to reject them.
….. we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that, in a critical hour, such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the national defense and safety which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it.
Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group was, for the same reason, a military imperative answers the contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group punishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese origin. That there were members of the group who retained loyalties to Japan has been confirmed by investigations made subsequent to the exclusion. Approximately five thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry refused to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and to renounce allegiance to the Japanese Emperor, and several thousand evacuees requested repatriation to Japan.
We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. Hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities, as well as its privileges, and, in time of war, the burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when, under conditions of modern warfare, our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.
It is argued that, on May 30, 1942, the date the petitioner was charged with remaining in the prohibited area, there were conflicting orders outstanding, forbidding him both to leave the area and to remain there. Of course, a person cannot be convicted for doing the very thing which it is a crime to fail to do. But the outstanding orders here contained no such contradictory commands.
There was an order issued March 27, 1942, which prohibited petitioner and others of Japanese ancestry from leaving the area, but its effect was specifically limited in time “until and to the extent that a future proclamation or order should so permit or direct.” 7 Fed.Reg. 2601. That “future order,” the one for violation of which petitioner was convicted, was issued May 3, 1942, and it did “direct” exclusion from the area of all persons of Japanese ancestry before 12 o’clock noon, May 9; furthermore, it contained a warning that all such persons found in the prohibited area would be liable to punishment under the March 21, 1942, Act of Congress. Consequently, the only order in effect touching the petitioner’s being in the area on May 30, 1942, the date specified in the information against him, was the May 3 order which prohibited his remaining there, and it was that same order which he stipulated in his trial that he had violated, knowing of its existence. There is therefore no basis for the argument that, on May 30, 1942, he was subject to punishment, under the March 27 and May 3 orders, whether he remained in or left the area.
It does appear, however, that, on May 9, the effective date of the exclusion order, the military authorities had already determined that the evacuation should be effected by assembling together and placing under guard all those of Japanese ancestry at central points, designated as “assembly centers,” in order to insure the orderly evacuation and resettlement of Japanese voluntarily migrating from Military Area No. 1, to restrict and regulate such migration.
Public Proclamation No. 4, 7 Fed.Reg. 2601. And on May 19, 1942, eleven days before the time petitioner was charged with unlawfully remaining in the area, Civilian Restrictive Order No. 1, 8 Fed.Reg. 982, provided for detention of those of Japanese ancestry in assembly or relocation centers. It is now argued that the validity of the exclusion order cannot be considered apart from the orders requiring him, after departure from the area, to report and to remain in an assembly or relocation center. The contention is that we must treat these separate orders as one and inseparable; that, for this reason, if detention in the assembly or relocation center would have illegally deprived the petitioner of his liberty, the exclusion order and his conviction under it cannot stand.
We are thus being asked to pass at this time upon the whole subsequent detention program in both assembly and relocation centers, although the only issues framed at the trial related to petitioner’s remaining in the prohibited area in violation of the exclusion order. Had petitioner here left the prohibited area and gone to an assembly center, we cannot say, either as a matter of fact or law, that his presence in that center would have resulted in his detention in a relocation center. Some who did report to the assembly center were not sent to relocation centers, but were released upon condition that they remain outside the prohibited zone until the military orders were modified or lifted. This illustrates that they pose different problems, and may be governed by different principles. The lawfulness of one does not necessarily determine the lawfulness of the others. This is made clear when we analyze the requirements of the separate provisions of the separate orders. These separate requirements were that those of Japanese ancestry (1) depart from the area; (2) report to and temporarily remain in an assembly center; (3) go under military control to a relocation center, there to remain for an indeterminate period until released conditionally or unconditionally by the military authorities. Each of these requirements, it will be noted, imposed distinct duties in connection with the separate steps in a complete evacuation program. Had Congress directly incorporated into one Act the language of these separate orders, and provided sanctions for their violations, disobedience of any one would have constituted a separate offense. There is no reason why violations of these orders, insofar as they were promulgated pursuant to Congressional enactment, should not be treated as separate offenses.
Some of the members of the Court are of the view that evacuation and detention in an Assembly Center were inseparable. After May 3, 1942, the date of Exclusion Order No. 34, Korematsu was under compulsion to leave the area not as he would choose, but via an Assembly Center. The Assembly Center was conceived as a part of the machinery for group evacuation. The power to exclude includes the power to do it by force if necessary. And any forcible measure must necessarily entail some degree of detention or restraint, whatever method of removal is selected. But whichever view is taken, it results in holding that the order under which petitioner was convicted was valid.
It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers — and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps, with all the ugly connotations that term implies — we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that, at that time, these actions were unjustified.
Justice Felix Frankfurter concurred in the opinion. He wrote: The provisions of the Constitution which confer on the Congress and the President powers to enable this country to wage war are as much part of the Constitution as provisions looking to a nation at peace. And we have had recent occasion to quote approvingly the statement of former Chief Justice Hughes that the war power of the Government is “the power to wage war successfully.” Hirabayashi v. United States. Therefore, the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war.
The Korematsu decision has not been overturned. It is still good precedent.
The Kerry v. Din case is a recent case which speaks to the rights that foreign nationals are entitled to with respect to coming to the United States, and particularly when they come from a country that has a history of terrorism. If a person believes he or she has a right to something, such as “Life, Liberty, or Property,” then a violation of such, including imprisonment, confiscation, condemnation, a denial of an essential liberty right, triggers Due Process rights (that is, a process to challenge that denial under our constitution). When Due Process is violated, then there is potential Due Process violation, challengeable under the 5th amendment or 14th amendment (depending whether the denial is by the federal government or the state, respectively). In Kerry, the Supreme Court held: “No Due Process is owed when these interests are not at stake.” A foreign national (non-US citizen, not living in the US) is not entitled to a Due Process challenge because he has no rights that are respected by the US Constitution. Furthermore, he has no standing to bring suit in the United States for such a violation.
The case concerns a US citizen who married a citizen and resident of Afghanistan (that is, citizen of the latter). Fauzia Din, who is a United States citizen, filed a visa petition for her husband Kanishka Berashk, a citizen and resident of Afghanistan. She wanted to bring him to the United States. Nine months later, the State Department denied the petition based on a broad provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that excludes aliens on terrorism-related grounds. Berashk asked for clarification of the visa denial and was told that it is not possible for the Embassy to provide him with a detailed explanation of the reasons for denial.
After several other unsuccessful attempts to receive explanation of the visa denial, Din sued and argued that denying notice for aliens who were not granted a visa based on terrorism grounds is unconstitutional. The federal district court held that Din did not have standing to challenge the visa denial notice. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the government is required to give notice of reasons for visa denial based on terrorism grounds. The Ninth Circuit held two things: (1) that a U.S. citizen has a protected liberty interest in her marriage that entitled her to review of the denial of a visa to her non-U.S.-citizen spouse, and (2) that the US government deprived her of that liberty interest when it denied the spouse’s visa application without providing a more detailed explanation of its reasons.
In a 5-4 decision for Kerry, delivered by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that Mrs. Din was not deprived of any constitutional rights in the due process of law by denying a full explanation of why an alien’s visa was denied. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen may be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without due process, but judicial precedent has held that no due process is owed when these interests are not at stake. Because none of these interests are implicated in the denial of a nonresident alien’s visa application, there is no denial of due process when the visa application is rejected without explanation. Although “liberty” has been construed to refer to fundamental rights, there is no precedent that supports the contention that the right to live with one’s spouse is such a fundamental right.
The Left and the media has been misrepresenting President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration and refugee admission as a “Muslim ban” – or, more cleverly, a ban on immigration from “Muslim-majority countries.” In truth, the ban applies to everyone from the countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – Muslim, Christian, whatever. In fact, one of the first families caught at the airport when the executive order went into effect was a Christian family from Syria.
These seven nations were not chosen at random. They were all singled out as exceptional security risks in the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015 and its 2016 extension. In fact, President Trump’s order does not even name the seven countries. It merely refers to the sections of U.S. Code that were changed by the Terrorist Prevention Act, signed by President Obama in 2015 and then extended in 2016.
The list of seven nations which was compiled by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, actually goes back to Obama’s first term, around 2011. Obama made this list, not Donald Trump, and there was very little resistance from congressional Democrats at any step in the process singling out these countries for the potential danger they pose (or for the inability to provide adequate information on their citizens). And that speaks volumes. There was no resistance because the list was perfectly sensible.
Again, on its face, the Executive Order is neutral. Only the Left reads discrimination into it. Only the Left puts the concerns and rights of non-citizens above those of citizens.
But even if the travel ban were discriminatory, the Supreme Court, in Korematsu, explained how we assess its constitutionality or lack thereof. Justice Black wrote: “It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.” In other words, the burden on civil liberties is to be balanced with the public necessity. The burden may also be balanced with the severity of the threat to national security. In short, we have to ensure that government strikes the proper balance between liberty and security, with the greater weight placed properly. A nation devoted to the liberties of its citizens can only live up to those promises as long as it continues to exist. If the nation is cannibalized by the very freedoms that it seeks to protect so that its very existence is threatened, then no one’s rights are secure. Liberty no longer has a safe haven.
If we were to balance the burden on civil liberties by the burden placed on non-citizens (who arguably have no entitlement or right to come here to the United States), in the balancing test outlined by the Supreme Court (aka, “strict scrutiny”), we would need to balance that burden by the need to protect our country and its citizens from the violent attacks that are occurring, and occurring at a greatly increased frequency, by persons of one particular religious sect (or ideology). By all accounts, those seeking to do harm to us (“Death to America!”) will seek to slip into the country through the refugee and relocation programs. We then need to evaluate that burden and ask if it is reasonable and whether there are other less burdensome policies to achieve the same result. Is a 90-day temporary ban reasonable? Is it reasonable to require those seven countries listed in the Executive Order to comply with a request from our State Department and Homeland Security Department to provide reliable and verifiable information on its nationals so that the United States can properly assess and vet these individuals for entry into our cities and communities?
We are not talking about the issue of whether non-citizens living in the United States should be recognized with similar rights as citizens (minus the right to vote and hold office). We are talking about the right to come here in the first place. The “right” of a foreigner to come here necessarily burdens the right of the government to control immigration and set policy for national security.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Kleindienst was delivered by Justice Harry Blackmun. In that decision, the Court noted Congress’ longstanding power to exclude aliens from the United States, and to set the terms and conditions of their entry. Through the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress legitimately delegated to the executive the authority to waive a finding of inadmissibility. He described the historical pattern of increasing federal control on the admissibility of aliens, particularly regarding individuals with Communist affiliation or views. Justice Blackmun held that the Court would not intervene so long as the executive used its waiver power on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason. “In the exercise of Congress’ plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in § 212(a)(28) of the Act has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When, as in this case, the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien.” At pp. 761-770.].
The states of Washington and Minnesota alleged that it had standing to challenge the validity of President Trump’s Executive Order, claiming it would suffer irreparable injury. It alleged that the order was directed at the Muslim religion, that there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States from any persons from the countries listed in the ban which would make the religious targeting unconstitutional, and that to block Muslims from entering Washington would cause it irreparable injury. To be clear, the focus of the states’ legal challenge was the way the president’s Executive Order targeted Islam.
“Standing” is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. In law, “standing” is the legal right to bring a lawsuit to court. Usually, it requires that the plaintiff, or the person who brings the case, has either been affected by the events in the case or will be imminently affected or harmed if the court does not address the problem. Standing is also affected by state or federal laws that apply to the events in the case, since some laws do not allow injured plaintiffs to sue certain defendants even if the plaintiff can demonstrate that she was injured by the defendant’s actions.
(i) Injury: The plaintiff must show either that she has been injured in a particular way or will be injured in a particular way if the court does not act to prevent it (this is the basis of many requests for injunctions). The injury can be physical, mental/emotional, financial, or an injury to one of the plaintiff’s civil rights, as long as it is a specific injury.
(ii) Causation: The plaintiff must show there’s some connection between the injury and the defendant’s actions or planned actions. In a Complaint, causation is usually shown by a single sentence linking the defendant’s acts to the plaintiff’s injury. Complicated questions involving cause in fact or proximate cause are usually saved for trial.
(iii) Addressability: The situation has to be one the court can fix in some way, whether it’s by issuing an injunction, ordering the defendant to pay damages, or by some other particular method.
In order to keep lawsuits focused on a plaintiff who was actually injured and a defendant who may be responsible, U.S. courts have, over the years, limited the kinds of cases a plaintiff has standing to bring.
(i) The plaintiff is a third party who was not injured herself, but is suing on behalf of someone who was injured. Exceptions to this rule include parents who sue on behalf of their injured children and legally-appointed guardians who sue on behalf of their wards. Courts have also allowed organizations to sue on behalf of their members in a few cases where it was obvious that all the members faced the same injury.
(ii) The plaintiff tries to sue on behalf of some large, unidentified group who may or may not be injured. Often called “taxpayer standing,” this rule prevents cases in which one plaintiff attempts to sue the government on the grounds that the plaintiff, a taxpayer, doesn’t like what the government is doing with tax revenues. So far, the only exception to this rule has been certain cases brought under the First Amendment Establishment Clause to prevent the government from funneling taxpayer dollars to particular religious institutions.
The state of Washington (and then Minnesota would join in) asserted it had standing to bring the challenge by claiming that the Order would “adversely affect the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” and that these harms “extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.” Furthermore, the states claimed that they would be harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States’ operations, tax bases, and public funds. They claimed the harm is significant and ongoing. Judge Robart agreed with the states’ position.
On the same day that Judge Robart issued the TRO (February 4), the government submitted an Emergency Motion to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting that the injunction (or TRO) to be vacated.
“The district court reasoned that the Washington has Article III standing because the Order “adversely affects the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” and that these harms “extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.” But a State cannot bring a parens patriae action against federal defendants. In dismissing Massachusetts’ challenge to a federal statute designed to “protect the health of mothers and infants” in Massachusetts v. Mellon, the Supreme Court explained that “it is no part of a State’s duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.” 262 U.S. 447, 478, 485-86 (1923); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 324 (1966). The district court also reasoned that “the States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States’ operations, tax bases, and public funds.” These attenuated and speculative alleged harms are neither concrete nor particularized. With respect to Washington’s public universities, most if not all of the students and faculty members the State identifies are not prohibited from entering the United States, and others’ alleged difficulties are hypothetical or speculative.
That is particularly true given the Order’s waiver authority. See Executive Order §§ 3(g), 5(e). Furthermore, any assertion of harm to the universities’ reputations and ability to attract students is insufficiently concrete for standing. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990). And although Washington suggested that the Order might affect its recruitment efforts and child welfare system, it conceded that it could not identify any currently affected state employees, nor any actual impact on its child welfare system.
Washington’s contentions regarding its tax base and public funds are equally flawed. See Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12, 17-18 (1927) (finding no standing based on Florida’s allegation that challenged law would diminish tax base); see also, e.g., Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block, 771 F.2d 347, 353 (8th Cir. 1985). Nor does Washington have any “legally protected interest,” Arizona Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 134 (2011), in the grant or denial of entry to an alien outside the United States. The INA’s carefully reticulated scheme provides for judicial review only at the behest of an alien adversely affected, and even then only if the alien is subject to removal proceedings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The Ninth Circuit denied the government’s motion.
Did the Ninth Circuit engage in partisan politics by denying the government’s motion ?
In conclusion, in light of the government’s obligation to keep the country safe and secure, in light of its war powers, its powers with respect to immigration, foreign policy, and national security, and noting that the temporary ban is neutral with respect to the religion of the people impacted, the Executive Order should be upheld. Furthermore, even if the Order targets a class of persons, a balancing test will show that the temporary nature of the ban is more than reasonable in light of the threats posed by terrorists who may try to use the relocation efforts to gain access to the United States and do irreparable harm. Finally, the Executive Order is merely a reasonable expansion of a program that has already been in place under the previous administration.
Sean Hannity, “There are Four Times the US Stopped Immigrants from a Particular Group.
Washington shopping mall mass shooter – an illegal immigrant (from a Muslim country) who voted 3 times. Referenced at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cDwCK3Dpcg [Published on Sep 28, 2016. A man who went on a shooting rampage in a store in the Cascade Mall in Burlington, Washington is in custody, accused of killing five people. The suspect, Arcan Cetin, a 20-year-old, is being charged with five counts of first-degree premeditated murder. There’s also another element to the story that could result in other charges for Cetin. The Cascade mall shooter isn’t a U.S. citizen, but voted in 3 election cycles. From King 5: The Cascade Mall shooting suspect, Arcan Cetin, may face an additional investigation related to his voting record and citizenship status. Federal sources confirm to KING 5 that Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary. While voters must attest to citizenship upon registering online or registering to vote at the Department of Licensing Office, Washington state doesn’t require proof of citizenship. Therefore, elections officials say the state’s elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system. — Just a couple years ago, then-Attorney General Eric Holder said vote fraud was “a problem that doesn’t exist.” They operate on the honor system? What could go wrong? — That can’t be so. We’ve been assured voter fraud is a myth. The story doesn’t say who Cetin voted for. This story highlights that immigration laws and criminal laws aren’t the only laws that illegal immigrants break and are breaking. Why was FOX News the only national news organization covering this story?
Secti on 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numer ous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
der to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
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.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d);Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Article I, article II, congressional powers, Diane Rufino, executive order, executive powers, federal courts, federal district court, injunction, Judge Robart, Kerry v. Kim, Korematsu, Muslim ban, national security, President Trump, presidential powers, sovereignty, standing, temporary restraining order, temporary travel ban, travel ban, TRO, Trump, war powers, Washington. Bookmark the permalink.

References: §1101
 §1181
 v. 
 §1182
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 212
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1252
 v.