Legal battle over Trump refugee ban will be one to watch

That was quick.

With a stroke of his pen Obama agreed to allow 85,000 Syrian refugees into this country. With a stroke of his pen Trump cut that number to zero. Of course, more than 12,000 are probably already here.

Today refugees from the countries singled out by Trump in his executive order are already being held at airports on arrival from overseas and lawsuits have been filed.

Trump signs executive order.

Trump signs executive order.

Trump’s order suspends all refugees for 120 days and bars for 90 days the entry of any citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Yemen — even if they have valid visas. Trump said he intends to increase the vetting of certain foreigners and screen out potential “radical Islamic terrorists.”

When admissions are allowed to resume the order would “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” — presumably Christians.

This has lawyers scrambling for precedents to cite to establish religious discrimination and question the constitutionality of the order.

The U.K.-based Guardian already has posted an article exploring the legal arguments that can be made and notes that the Supreme Court ruled Congress can make immigration rules that, if applied to citizens, would be unconstitutional.

In the 1890s, the newspaper relates, the high court upheld a ban on Chinese immigrants. In 1972, the court ruled the president could bar a Marxist from entry, but said the president needed reasons that were “facially legitimate and bona fide.”

This past June the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and thus let stand a Texas court ruling that blocked an Obama executive order granting millions of illegal immigrants amnesty from deportation and access to work permits.

The order was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and would have allowed illegal immigrants if they had been in the country at least five years and had not committed felonies or repeated misdemeanors. It also would have expanded his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Trump at the time called Obama’s order “one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president.”

Now, we will see how his executive orders fare in court.





14 comments on “Legal battle over Trump refugee ban will be one to watch

  1. desertrat says:

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. ch. 12). The Act governs primarily immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It has been in effect since December 24, 1952. Before this Act, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized within one body of text.

    Used by
    J. Carter (Dem) “the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. The act was utilized by Jimmy Carter in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States in 1979. It is of note that the act requires that an applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and “attached to the principles of the Constitution”.

    At McCARRAN-WALTER ACT OF 1952. (n.d.) Retrieved , from

  2. Rincon says:

    This is an example, and there will be many, of one of America’s greatest handicaps in dealing with the rest of the world. Because we are so balkanized, we rarely speak with one voice. In the past, there was some semblance of continuity. No longer. From now on, no matter what agreements we make, all other nations know that we cannot be trusted to keep our word for long and so, they will treat us accordingly. China, on the other hand, speaks with a strong, unified voice. I don’t like their form of government, but other nations may decide that their unified voice has a distinct advantage over our unpredictability.

  3. Steve says:

    Get your gas masks ready,,,Beijing air is coming to the USA, thanks Rincon!

  4. Steve says:

    Man the feds are working overtime!
    Every incoming administration tries to get moving fast but Trump (as he has with everything else) has amp’d this up to 11 already receiving action by the judiciary!
    The entertainment is priceless…but we pay a premium for it.

  5. deleted says:

    Anyone keeping track of Dons rule by (unconstitutional) executive fiat?

    What would our beloved Fonding Fathers think?

    I fear for our repblic.

  6. Steve says:

    “Anyone keeping track of Dons rule by (unconstitutional) executive fiat?”

    “The Donald” is on par with Obama in early issue executive orders. But he’s going faster than Clinton and Bush.


  7. deleted says:

    Thank God there’s still some responsible journalists out there.

    What is it about science that republicans seem to detest so much? This policy is akin to the old rules in professional sports leagues in the US that kept the best players out because of the color of their skin. We all suffered.

  8. Steve says:

    What’s wrong with growing our own high tech minds?

  9. deleted says:

    I fear for our republic. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would have thought?

    A Constitutional crisis after less than two weeks, and the silence (through their applause) is deafening.

    I fear for our beloved republic.

  10. Athos says:

    Which one was “deleted”: petey or Patrick? I don’t remember. Still phony as a $3 bill! Still on Plouffe -boys payroll? (and still referencing the daily beast?)

    Rinny, it’s really not a question of speaking as one voice. Pinocchio rarely spoke for me, but I didn’t shut down airports or burn limos in an effort to marginalize the boob. The MSM, the leftist mind numb robots, and the Dems are in an all out war against any attempt to return us to normality.

    Lies, violence, obstruction and chaos are all fair in this war for the soul of America, BY THE LEFT.

    Us decent folks on the Right need to wake up fast. (Of course, we DO own all the guns, don’t we?)

  11. Rincon says:

    That’s the same thing the conservative establishment said about the civil rights and Viet Nam War protests. They were in the wrong then as well.

  12. deleted says:

    Athos weren’t you one of the “principle” guys from the far right? Or, are you just another guy (or gal) from the far right who talks about principles, and how much they mean, while accusing some democrat of violating them, only to turn around and ignore them, when a rightee gets into office?

  13. Steve says:

    Shammy is the kettle.

  14. Rincon says:

    Apparently. Liberals aren’t above using some of the same weapons that Conservatives embraced during the Obama years. A California court has approved a group obtaining signatures to put secession from the union on the ballot. Shades of Texas!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s