Challenges to Trump's immigration orders spread to more U.S. states

[webfact]

Challenges to Trump's immigration orders spread to more U.S. states

By Scott Malone and Dan Levine

REUTERS

 

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (2nd R) announces the state will join a lawsuit, along with plaintiffs Oxfam President Ray Offenheiser (L) and University of Massachusetts President Martin Meehan (3rd L), challenging U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel ban in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. January 31, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

 

BOSTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Legal challenges to President Donald Trump's first moves on immigration spread on Tuesday, with three states suing over his executive order banning travel into the United States by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries.

 

Massachusetts, New York and Virginia joined the legal battle against the travel ban, which the White House deems necessary to improve national security.

 

The challenges contend the order violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of religious freedom.

 

San Francisco became the first U.S. city to sue to challenge a Trump directive to withhold federal money from U.S. cities that have adopted sanctuary policies toward undocumented immigrants, which local officials argue help local police by making those immigrants more willing to report crimes.

 

The legal manoeuvres were the latest acts of defiance against executive orders signed by Trump last week that sparked a wave of protests in major U.S. cities, where thousands of people decried the new president's actions as discriminatory.

 

Both policies are in line with campaign promises by Republican businessman-turned-politician Trump, who vowed to build a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration and to take hard-line steps to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

 

The restrictions on the seven Muslim-majority countries and new limits on refugees have won the support of many Americans, with 49 percent of respondents to a Reuters poll conducted Monday and Tuesday saying they agreed with the order, while 41 percent disagreed.

 

Massachusetts contended the restrictions run afoul of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits religious preference.

 

"At bottom, what this is about is a violation of the Constitution," Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said of the order halting travel by people with passports from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. The order also barred resettlement of refugees for 120 days and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees.

 

"It discriminates against people because of their religion, it discriminates against people because of their country of origin," Healey said at a Boston press conference, flanked by leaders from the tech, healthcare and education sectors who said that the order could limit their ability to attract and retain highly educated workers.

 

Massachusetts will be backing a lawsuit filed over the weekend in Boston federal court by two Iranian men who teach the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. A federal judge blocked the government from expelling those men from the country and halted enforcement of the order for seven days, following similar but more limited moves in four other states.

 

The attorneys general of New York and Virginia also said their states were joining similar lawsuits filed in their respective federal courts challenging the ban.

 

"As we speak, there are students at our colleges and universities who are unable to return to Virginia," Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring told reporters. "This is not an action I take lightly, but it is one I take with confidence in our legal analysis."

 

Multiple foreign nationals have also filed lawsuits challenging the ban. They included one filed in Colorado on Tuesday by a Libyan college student and one in Chicago filed on Monday by an Iranian father of three children all living in Illinois.

 

SANCTUARY CHALLENGE

 

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed suit over Trump's order cutting funds to cities with sanctuary policies, a move that could stop the flow of billions of dollars in aid to major U.S. population centres also including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

 

"If allowed to be implemented this executive order would make our communities less safe. It would make our residents less prosperous, and it would split families apart," Herrera said.

 

Sanctuary cities adopt policies that limit cooperation, such as refusing to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests. Advocates of the policies say that, beyond helping police with crime reporting, they make undocumented immigrants more willing to serve as witnesses if they do not fear that contact with law enforcement will lead to their deportation.

 

Both the San Francisco and Massachusetts actions contend that Trump's orders in question violate the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that powers not granted to the federal government should fall to the states.

 

Michael Hethmon, senior counsel with the conservative Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, called the San Francisco lawsuit a "silly political gesture," noting that prior federal court decisions make clear that the U.S. government "can prohibit a policy that essentially impedes legitimate federal programs."

 

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg, Curtis Skinner, Timothy McLaughlin, Ian Simpson and Keith Coffman; Editing by Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-01

[khwaibah]

All BLUE States.

[beechguy]

As usual, little knowledge of that part of the world is being exhibited. If anything, there should probably be more countries added to the list, rather than removed. I would say at least three of the countries are failed states, the others with the exception of Iran, questionable.

I realize there is more to the screening process, but I saw too many house maids, etc. depart Kuwait and Bahrain, and return 2 or 3 weeks later with new passports/travel documents, with new identities. I just do not have very much confidence in the system, if we are going to do something to provide relief, let's keep it out of the U.S.

Edited February 1, 2017 by beechguy

[craigt3365]

33 minutes ago, beechguy said:

As usual, little knowledge of that part of the world is being exhibited. If anything, there should probably be more countries added to the list, rather than removed. I would say at least three of the countries are failed states, the others with the exception of Iran, questionable.

I realize there is more to the screening process, but I saw too many house maids, etc. depart Kuwait and Bahrain, and return 2 or 3 weeks later with new passports/travel documents, with new identities. I just do not have very much confidence in the system, if we are going to do something to provide relief, let's keep it out of the U.S.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/28/14425504/trump-refugee-travel-ban-business-countries

President Trump’s travel ban will leave his business partners untouched

 

Quote

 

A golf course bearing Trump’s name is set to open in Dubai in the near future, with a second to follow next year. His hotel company hopes to build in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He rents space in Trump Tower to Qatar Airways. The governments of Bahrain and Kuwait have spent money to celebrate events at his DC hotel.

..............

But the result is still that the president of the United States just closed the country to people from poor and war-torn countries seeking a better life, while continuing to profit off his investments in wealthier parts of the Middle East.

 

Trump’s business dealings enrich the citizens of the wealthiest parts of the region. His policies shut the door on the neediest.

 

 

[beechguy]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/28/14425504/trump-refugee-travel-ban-business-countries

President Trump’s travel ban will leave his business partners untouched

 

 

But I would say those countries, generally speaking, have made a reasonable effort to combat terrorism. I don't recall such an effort by the countries on the current list.

Also, for me, this isn't just about preventing terrorist type violence, but societal problems as currently being experienced in Germany, U.K. and Sweden, etc.

[Ulysses G.]

9 minutes ago, beechguy said:

But I would say those countries, generally speaking, have made a reasonable effort to combat terrorism. I don't recall such an effort by the countries on the current list.

Also, for me, this isn't just about preventing terrorist type violence, but societal problems as currently being experienced in Germany, U.K. and Sweden, etc.

Also, it is a lot easier to vet immigrants from those countries well. That is why the Obama administration did not put them on their list of "countries of particular concern" that Trump used as a basis for his executive order. Most of the countries in the EO are in chaos and the identities and claims of the applicants are nearly impossible to verify. The lack of U.S. relationships with their governments and law enforcement as well as the use of fake passports and fraudulent documents is dangerous.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, beechguy said:

But I would say those countries, generally speaking, have made a reasonable effort to combat terrorism. I don't recall such an effort by the countries on the current list.

Also, for me, this isn't just about preventing terrorist type violence, but societal problems as currently being experienced in Germany, U.K. and Sweden, etc.

Agreed.  Except for Saudi Arabia....

 

The US won't have the problems Europe has because we've only got 2 land borders.  One with Canada and one with Mexico.  Mexico is the problem.  Immigrants coming in from the air are not the problem.  They are vetted fairly well now.  Impossible for somebody to just board a plane and fly to the US without the proper paperwork and approvals.  Which is the problem in Europe right now.

[kamahele]

Saudi Arabia which seems to be a chief supplier of terrorists and terrorist ideology is not on the list for the obvious reasons which are deeper than just that Trump has business in the country. As far as refugees, the definition of a refugee is  "a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. " We are basically cancelling the US refugee program by refusing to accept those who are truly refugees unless of course they are Christian or Arab Jews, then it is okay......

[dunroaming]

9 hours ago, beechguy said:

But I would say those countries, generally speaking, have made a reasonable effort to combat terrorism.

Like Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

[Aachen]

10 hours ago, beechguy said:

But I would say those countries, generally speaking, have made a reasonable effort to combat terrorism. I don't recall such an effort by the countries on the current list.

Also, for me, this isn't just about preventing terrorist type violence, but societal problems as currently being experienced in Germany, U.K. and Sweden, etc.

• Reasonable effort????  15 of 17 terrorists came from Trumps business partner Saudi Arabia. - Wake up.
• What problem in Germany? You read the wrong papers.

[Opl]

10 hours ago, beechguy said:

But I would say those countries, generally speaking, have made a reasonable effort to combat terrorism. I don't recall such an effort by the countries on the current list.

Also, for me, this isn't just about preventing terrorist type violence, but societal problems as currently being experienced in Germany, U.K. and Sweden, etc.

 

How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html

 

" But over time, the Saudis say, their support for extremism turned on them, metastasizing into a serious threat to the Kingdom and to the West. They had created a monster that had begun to devour them. “We did not own up to it after 9/11 because we feared you would abandon or treat us as the enemy,” the Saudi senior official conceded. “And we were in denial.”

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/saudi-arabia-terrorism-funding-214241

[beechguy]

3 hours ago, Aachen said:

• Reasonable effort????  15 of 17 terrorists came from Trumps business partner Saudi Arabia. - Wake up.
• What problem in Germany? You read the wrong papers.

Apparently you haven't been reading papers at all.

Saudi Arabia could absolutely do better, early on they were reluctant to engage. But in recent years they have been more active in their own country as well as Yemen.

By the way, I lived in that region for 15 years, I do not need to wake up. What about your first hand experience in the region?

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, Aachen said:

• Reasonable effort????  15 of 17 terrorists came from Trumps business partner Saudi Arabia. - Wake up.

Saudi Arabia has a functioning government and the US cooperates with it and with the Saudi police. It is much easier to vet immigrants from Saudi Arabia, which is why it was not included on the Obama administrations list of "countries of concern", that was the basis for Trump's restrictions. However, it is possible that other dangerous countries will be added later.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[beechguy]

3 hours ago, Opl said:

 

How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html

 

" But over time, the Saudis say, their support for extremism turned on them, metastasizing into a serious threat to the Kingdom and to the West. They had created a monster that had begun to devour them. “We did not own up to it after 9/11 because we feared you would abandon or treat us as the enemy,” the Saudi senior official conceded. “And we were in denial.”

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/saudi-arabia-terrorism-funding-214241

So how does that contradict what I said? The Saudi's were slow to engage, until interests of the Royal Family were attacked. Also, most people are ignoring the actions of the population versus government actions and policies. I do think they could do more and do better. But, the Saudi's have attacked training operations in their own country, as well as engage in activities across the border in Yemen.

Edited February 1, 2017 by beechguy

[beechguy]

5 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Like Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

As noted previously, I have been to both countries, how about yourself?

Do I think more should be done, absolutely. But in the Arab world, it seems to take constant pressure, something we gave up in Iraq, because of the Obama Administration, and the Iraqi's paid for it.

[Scott]

The problem with placing any kind of a ban on Saudi Arabia is that there are extensive business ties between the two countries.   As mentioned, it also has a functioning gov't which is quite attuned to security issues.   On the other hand, it is a very conservative country and many of the people coming from SA are bent toward an extreme form of Islam.   That could be an indicator of someone more likely to be swayed toward extremist activity.  

 

I have a trouble supporting any type of total ban because we need to carefully examine everyone entering the US.   Especially those who intend on staying for an extended length of time.  

 

 

[WaywardWind]

21 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Also, it is a lot easier to vet immigrants from those countries well. That is why the Obama administration did not put them on their list of "countries of particular concern" that Trump used as a basis for his executive order. Most of the countries in the EO are in chaos and the identities and claims of the applicants are nearly impossible to verify. The lack of U.S. relationships with their governments and law enforcement as well as the use of fake passports and fraudulent documents is dangerous.

The Obama administration did not create he list of "countries of particular concern" - that was a Republican endeavor from start to finish. 

 

That information has been posted here several times, including in responses to you, yet you continue to post this fake assertion.  Why is that?

[Ulysses G.]

Nothing fake about it. It started with the Obama administration's list.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Nothing fake about it. It started with the Obama administration's list.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/

From your link:

 

Quote

 

Conflict of interest questions

In the hours after its release, many questioned why the list omitted other countries with direct links to those terror attacks. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon.

 

Some also questioned whether Trump deliberately left off countries where he has business interests.

 

The list does not include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization does business, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In financial disclosure forms during the presidential campaign, he listed two companies with dealings in Egypt and eight with business in Saudi Arabia. And in the UAE, the Trump Organization is partnering with a local billionaire to develop two golf courses in Dubai.

 

 

The Obama administration had already required extra screening AND visas for citizens of these 7 countries AS WELL AS anybody visiting these countries.  Trump is just outright banning them.  A bit of a knee jerk reaction?

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, beechguy said:

Apparently you haven't been reading papers at all.

Saudi Arabia could absolutely do better, early on they were reluctant to engage. But in recent years they have been more active in their own country as well as Yemen.

By the way, I lived in that region for 15 years, I do not need to wake up. What about your first hand experience in the region?

Saudi Arabia is funding mosques all over the world and pushing their very strict version of Islam.  They are teaching hate

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/is-saudi-funded-mosque-in-sarajevo-threat-to-bosnias-moderate-muslims/

 

Quote

 

Is Saudi-funded mosque in Sarajevo threat to Bosnia’s moderate Muslims?

A former Bosnian intelligence officer has told the “NewsHour” that Western allies should be more concerned about the risk from a huge Saudi-sponsored mosque in the capital, Sarajevo.

.........

People should be worried about this mosque. They will have a lot of money. That’s the most radical mosque in the whole Bosnia-Herzegovina. But it’s under formal Islamic community. And it’s not ever mentioned as a part about this story of these illegal religious communities.

 

And that’s the most radical. All those guys that actually performed some kind of terrorist activity in Bosnia-Herzegovina were part of that mosque, and nobody is mentioning that.

 

 

[dcutman]

It really all comes down to what the man promised to do during his campaign , and he was elected on those promises.

Well for all you non-believers and haters/Hillary lovers, he is doing just as he said he was going to do, as promised.

 

 

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, dcutman said:

It really all comes down to what the man promised to do during his campaign , and he was elected on those promises.

Well for all you non-believers and haters/Hillary lovers, he is doing just as he said he was going to do, as promised.

 

 

He was not elected by a majority of Americans.  Following up on campaign promises is fine.  But it needs to be done properly.  And within the laws and guidelines of our government.  He's obviously not doing this.

 

Worth a read:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/trump-executive-order-constitutional-crisis/index.html

 

Quote

 

What's a constitutional crisis -- and are we in one?

"What we're seeing (in the airports) and what I'm concerned about is an administration that acts rashly and fails to consult in ways that generate the possibility and create the likelihood that executive agents will operate in violation of court orders," Chacón said.

 

 

[dcutman]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

He was not elected by a majority of Americans.

Keep your dreams going, but here in the US the President is elected by the electoral college.  Your point is totally mute.

Better luck next election, you have at least 4 to bitch and complain, but the way he is doing as he promised to do, you will have to suffer 8 more years.

Go Trump!!!

 

[MajarTheLion]

This is odd. I don't recall any whining when Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming to the US.

 

The fact is, what Trump is doing is completely and totally legal. You leftists can thank Jimmy Carter for setting the precedent for actually using this law:

 

 

You people loved it when Obama used the federal government to keep the flood gates open. Now suck it up, Trump will likely to continue to do the reverse. It's his prerogative and these silly states are making fools of themselves pretending they have any say in the matter.

[MajarTheLion]

22 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

He was not elected by a majority of Americans.

Neither was Bill Clinton in either election he won, yet he was still president.

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

From your link:

 

 

The Obama administration had already required extra screening AND visas for citizens of these 7 countries AS WELL AS anybody visiting these countries.  Trump is just outright banning them.  A bit of a knee jerk reaction?

No, it's called executive privilege:

 

[dcutman]

Its hard to express the joy I get from Trump haters squirming around, kicking and screaming, and the Trump train keeps rolling along.

After he sorts out all of the damage Hillary and Obama have caused this world, I am hanging on hope HRC gets her deserved justice, prison time would be ideal.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, dcutman said:

Keep your dreams going, but here in the US the President is elected by the electoral college.  Your point is totally mute.

Better luck next election, you have at least 4 to bitch and complain, but the way he is doing as he promised to do, you will have to suffer 8 more years.

Go Trump!!!

 

The point is not mute.  A majority of Americans don't support Trump's actions.  Proven by his 36% approval rating! LOL

 

Not sure he'll make it 4 years at this rate. LOL

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

This is odd. I don't recall any whining when Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming to the US.

 

The fact is, what Trump is doing is completely and totally legal. You leftists can thank Jimmy Carter for setting the precedent for actually using this law:

 

 

You people loved it when Obama used the federal government to keep the flood gates open. Now suck it up, Trump will likely to continue to do the reverse. It's his prerogative and these silly states are making fools of themselves pretending they have any say in the matter.

Ummm....Iran held US hostages for 444 days when Carter implemented that ban.  A bit different that what Trump's done now.  Totally different.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/26/opinions/us-iran-immigration-hamid-dabashi/

 

Quote

 

Iranians no strangers to a US ban, but Trump era is different

Of the seven countries included in Mr. Trump's executive order -- Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen -- six of them (all except Iran) have been a target of US military operations over the last two decades. Until very recently Iran too has been the subject of crippling economic sanctions.

 

Banning the citizens of these war-torn regions will not increase US national security. Quite to the contrary. The xenophobic belligerence of the Trump administration singling out and indiscriminately targeting Muslims will in fact vastly increase the animus toward innocent Americans around the globe.

 

 

[dcutman]

42 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The point is not mute.  A majority of Americans don't support Trump's actions.  Proven by his 36% approval rating! LOL

 

Not sure he'll make it 4 years at this rate. LOL

The point is mute and will always be until election laws are changed. You can kick and scream about that all you like. If thats what make you people feel better.

You and the rest of the haters continue to think he is not gonna do this or that, and the rest of America will continue to laugh our asses off when he continues to do what he says he would and will do. Witch by the way, got him elected, by the vast majority or America.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by dcutman