The President Trump Immigration Thread

[T.Lex]

If this has been asked and answered I apologize. My question is why is Trump's executive order unconstitutional ? That seems to be the question before the 9th court. As I understand it only those without valid citizen status, passports, or visa are restricted for 90 days. Those critical state his is a Muslim ban and don't seem to mention anything about the 90 day portion of the restriction. Why is that ?

Couple things.

First, the actual text of the EO is significantly broader and would appear to apply to any non-citizen traveling from the 7 countries. That would include people who already have a vested interest in being here, like people with permanent resident status. That's the way it was initially enforced in certain ports of entry. That implementation is one part of what is being challenged. Trump's counterargument is that the EO was clarified to only apply to people without a vested interest (according to the DOJ). Part of the challenge is that the implementation was improper.

Second, a few of the states (WA, MN, and HI, I believe) are also challenging it on other grounds - that there is no rational basis for the action at all, and that it causes harm to residents (a lot of corporate residents) of their states. This is somewhat an extension of the first argument: that the residents, including corporations, had a right to rely on the prior implementation and the new implementation is not supported by the constitution.

As a secondary issue, when Obama and Congress passed the statute that basically listed the 7 countries at issue, no one challenged it. Some of the current challenges probably could've been brought when that was first enacted, but weren't. There's at least 1 challenge that the listing of countries discriminates against people based on "national origin" which is barred by several federal statutes, in different contexts. The executive is also bound to implement policies in conformity with laws. It is a "lesser" challenge than a constitutional one, but still a potentially valid argument.

We have many laws.

 

[KLB]

Meaning that the people from those countries are idiots who were educated in their local mud hut schools? Don't assume that their national origin prevented their access to education and opportunity.

You do have a way of twisting words.

I do not believe that all of those companies are suffering from a lack of employees now because of this EO. I work in IT with a lot of foreign nationals and cannot think of a single one from that area of the world. India, Pakistan, Indonesia and China are all represented, with India and Pakistan by far the majority.

 

[KLB]

Couple things.

First, the actual text of the EO is significantly broader and would appear to apply to any non-citizen traveling from the 7 countries. That would include people who already have a vested interest in being here, like people with permanent resident status. That's the way it was initially enforced in certain ports of entry. That implementation is one part of what is being challenged. Trump's counterargument is that the EO was clarified to only apply to people without a vested interest (according to the DOJ). Part of the challenge is that the implementation was improper.

Second, a few of the states (WA, MN, and HI, I believe) are also challenging it on other grounds - that there is no rational basis for the action at all, and that it causes harm to residents (a lot of corporate residents) of their states. This is somewhat an extension of the first argument: that the residents, including corporations, had a right to rely on the prior implementation and the new implementation is not supported by the constitution.

As a secondary issue, when Obama and Congress passed the statute that basically listed the 7 countries at issue, no one challenged it. Some of the current challenges probably could've been brought when that was first enacted, but weren't. There's at least 1 challenge that the listing of countries discriminates against people based on "national origin" which is barred by several federal statutes, in different contexts. The executive is also bound to implement policies in conformity with laws. It is a "lesser" challenge than a constitutional one, but still a potentially valid argument.

We have many laws.

That is a runner for understatement of the century.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Meaning that the people from those countries are idiots who were educated in their local mud hut schools? Don't assume that their national origin prevented their access to education and opportunity.

From what has been presented in the Seattle Court, you'd be hard put to argue there is a single H-1B holder impacted by the EO... because, unlike the MA AG, the WA AG has not listed a single individual.

And, ComputerWorld had to file a FOIA request to get data on H-1B nationalities (isn't that a big flag right there that such information isn't readily available?) and found that 86% of H-1Bs for IT are from India. So, the EO countries would be found in the remaining 14%, along with all of the Pakastani and Chinese nationals.

For other technologies, like engineering, one of the countries does appear. Iran. At 2.2%. Slightlly behind Mexico. 'Nuff said. The EO has almost zero impact upon H-1Bs.

With H-1B visa, diversity doesn?t apply | Computerworld

 

[T.Lex]

In the context of the litigation, the statistical impact doesn't matter as much as the basis for the impact. An EO calling for the imprisonment of left handed, albino, little people named Vyacheslav would have a very small statistical impact. Still, it would probably be unconstitutional. Perhaps defensible as a matter of national security, but still unconstitutional.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

In the context of the litigation, the statistical impact doesn't matter as much as the basis for the impact. An EO calling for the imprisonment of left handed, albino, little people named Vyacheslav would have a very small statistical impact. Still, it would probably be unconstitutional. Perhaps defensible as a matter of national security, but still unconstitutional.

That would be true if they were arguing that a potential (not already here) H-1B's rights were being impacted. I.e. individual rights. They aren't making that argument because there is no alien right to admission (as opposed to entry).

They are making the argument that economic impact on the state and it's companies is significant enough that they have standing. If the impact is negligible, then that argument goes away, so yes, the numbers matter.

 

[T.Lex]

I didn't say it didn't matter; I said it didn't matter as much as the basis for the decision.

Plus, it doesn't look like the DOJ is making the "insignificant" argument. Their briefs stress the authority of the executive and other aspects of standing.

 

[foszoe]

The law that Trump quoted seemed pretty straight forward. How it can become so convoluted is beyond me. Based on this, I now predict Elizabeth Warren will sue the US Senate that Rule 19 is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and will win.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I didn't say it didn't matter; I said it didn't matter as much as the basis for the decision.

Plus, it doesn't look like the DOJ is making the "insignificant" argument. Their briefs stress the authority of the executive and other aspects of standing.

You are right to an extent. DOJ's argument is that no such right, that a state has a right to H-1B employees and F-1 students, exits. And, they are correct. There is ZERO case law indicating such a right exists and much that indicates immigration is 100% a federal power. Just like in the Arizona case, if there is state impact, tough. Immigration is 100% federal.

This is whole cloth de novo, and yet another reason that Robart's actions are improper. He shouldn't even be considering it unless ordered to do so by an Appeals court, let alone issuing a TRO. There is a reason Robart didn't cite any case law in his TRO... it doesn't exist!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The law that Trump quoted seemed pretty straight forward. How it can become so convoluted is beyond me. Based on this, I now predict Elizabeth Warren will sue the US Senate that Rule 19 is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and will win.

It isn't convoluted at all. The problem is that some do not like that it allows this particular President to halt some immigration.

THAT is not what Obama would do, therefore, something must be devised to prevent it. THAT is where the convolution arises... inventing something that doesn't exist and is contrary to bookshelves full of case law. Just another flavor of "ends justify the means".

 

[T.Lex]

The law that Trump quoted seemed pretty straight forward. How it can become so convoluted is beyond me.

The implementation of the EO went (and still goes) beyond the text of the law. That's one complicating factor.

You are right to an extent. DOJ's argument is that no such right, that a state has a right to H-1B employees and F-1 students, exits. And, they are correct. There is ZERO case law indicating such a right exists and much that indicates immigration is 100% a federal power. Just like in the Arizona case, if there is state impact, tough. Immigration is 100% federal.

This is whole cloth de novo, and yet another reason that Robart's actions are improper. He shouldn't even be considering it unless ordered to do so by an Appeals court, let alone issuing a TRO. There is a reason Robart didn't cite any case law in his TRO... it doesn't exist!

That's not how the system works. A district court judge doesn't wait for an appeals court to tell them how to rule. The judge rules, then it is appealed and the appeals court determines if the district court judge was right.

There are still some "issues of first impression." There may not be cases directly on point. Both sides come up with cases that are analogous and make their best arguments. That appears to be the case here.

Trump, as he promised, is doing things differently than his predecessors. One consequence of that is that there may be more issues of first impression than before. Our process can handle it, but there will be some bumps along the way.

It isn't convoluted at all. The problem is that some do not like that it allows this particular President to halt some immigration.

Which is separate from the legal process.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

That's not how the system works. A district court judge doesn't wait for an appeals court to tell them how to rule. The judge rules, then it is appealed and the appeals court determines if the district court judge was right.

There are still some "issues of first impression." There may not be cases directly on point. Both sides come up with cases that are analogous and make their best arguments. That appears to be the case here.

I'll call BS. In Arizona, the Supremes ruled that states cannot even require legal status to apply for a job within the state, EVEN though that was in harmony with Federal law simply because the President had chosen not to enforce it... that is how "broad and undoubted" the federal power over immigration and alien status was according the the Supremes.

Looks like Robart is doing a lot of doubting and narrowing contra SCOTUS. This is a constitutional crisis when any one of the 678 District Judges can just pull something out of their a** at the drop of a hat, or in this case, based upon a bow tie and his "feelz". Perhaps he should put up a #resist banner in his courtroom.

He has plenty of existing law, case law, SCOTUS and Appeals decisions... all of which he is ignoring to come to his decision.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll call BS. In Arizona, the Supremes ruled that states cannot even require legal status to apply for a job within the state, EVEN though that was in harmony with Federal law simply because the President had chosen not to enforce it... that is how "broad and undoubted" the federal power over immigration and alien status was according the the Supremes.

Looks like Robart is doing a lot of doubting and narrowing contra SCOTUS. This is a constitutional crisis when any one of the 678 District Judges can just pull something out of their a** at the drop of a hat, or in this case, based upon a bow tie and his "feelz". Perhaps he should put up a #resist banner in his courtroom.

He has plenty of existing law, case law, SCOTUS and Appeals decisions... all of which he is ignoring to come to his decision.

If you're talking about the Arizona statute, as I pointed out upthread, that's an entirely different issue. This isn't an effort by a state to pass laws that affect immigration.

Instead, this is applying existing laws/constitutional cases to actions by the federal executive. This isn't a "crisis" because it is a designed process. This is how it is supposed to work. If it were a slam-dunk reversal, that would've happened.

Instead, this is a unique situation based on a novel approach by a new POTUS. This hasn't been done before (part of Trump's appeal) (pardon the pun). So, the arguments about it take familiar concepts and are applied to a new situation. Hilarity usually ensues when that happens.

 

[Lelliott8]

We have too many laws.

​FIFY

 

[SheepDog4Life]

If you're talking about the Arizona statute, as I pointed out upthread, that's an entirely different issue. This isn't an effort by a state to pass laws that affect immigration.

Instead, this is applying existing laws/constitutional cases to actions by the federal executive. This isn't a "crisis" because it is a designed process. This is how it is supposed to work. If it were a slam-dunk reversal, that would've happened.

Instead, this is a unique situation based on a novel approach by a new POTUS. This hasn't been done before (part of Trump's appeal) (pardon the pun). So, the arguments about it take familiar concepts and are applied to a new situation. Hilarity usually ensues when that happens.

No, our system is not designed for 678 US District judges to ignore direct SCOTUS and Appeals court rulings (and ancillary, though not controlling, opinions in other district courts and circuits of appeal) and use their "feelz" instead. Nor is our system designed for a Judge to provide more relief in a TRO than asked for by plaintiff (this is the 9ths out to uphold in part and overrule in part).

This is amateur hour in the Seattle District.

 

[T.Lex]

No, our system is not designed for 678 US District judges to ignore direct SCOTUS and Appeals court rulings (and ancillary, though not controlling, opinions in other district courts and circuits of appeal) and use their "feelz" instead. Nor is our system designed for a Judge to provide more relief in a TRO than asked for by plaintiff (this is the 9ths out to uphold in part and overrule in part).

This is amateur hour in the Seattle District.

The system is designed that if a district court judge - ANY district court judge - makes a bad decision, there is an opportunity to correct it with a near-immediate appeal. That is what is happening.

 

[foszoe]

Wow! This is like a virtual Matlock vs Mason!

 

[jamil]

Wow! This is like a virtual Maddock vs Mason!

Matlock?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Reporting now from Politico, Trump told senators he is open to Gang of 8 immigration bill, per Manchin. Lamar brought it up during meeting and need for reform

If true, please someone get a live camera on Ingraham, Coulter, etc... as he signs it into law.

 

[jamil]

Reporting now from Politico, Trump told senators he is open to Gang of 8 immigration bill, per Manchin. Lamar brought it up during meeting and need for reform

If true, please someone get a live camera on Ingraham, Coulter, etc... as he signs it into law.

How will that play now? If that's true, will Trump supporters "evolve"? Or will this chink Trump's armor?