In travel ban case, U.S. judges focus on discrimination, Trump's powers

[webfact]

In travel ban case, U.S. judges focus on discrimination, Trump's powers

By Tom James

 

People protest U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban outside of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Seattle, Washington, U.S. May 15, 2017. REUTERS/David Ryder

 

SEATTLE (Reuters) - U.S. appeals court judges on Monday questioned the lawyer defending President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban about whether it discriminates against Muslims and pressed challengers to explain why the court should not defer to Trump's presidential powers to set the policy.

 

The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was the second court in a week to review Trump's directive banning people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries.

 

Opponents - including the state of Hawaii and civil rights groups - say that both Trump's first ban and later revised ban discriminate against Muslims. The government argues that the text of the order does not mention any specific religion and is needed to protect the country against attacks.

 

In addressing the Justice Department at the hearing in Seattle, 9th Circuit Judge Richard Paez pointed out that many of Trump's statements about Muslims came "during the midst of a highly contentious (election) campaign." He asked if that should be taken into account when deciding how much weight they should be given in reviewing the travel ban's constitutionality.

 

Neal Katyal, an attorney for Hawaii which is opposing the ban, said the evidence goes beyond Trump's campaign statements.

 

"The government has not engaged in mass, dragnet exclusions in the past 50 years," Katyal said. "This is something new and unusual in which you're saying this whole class of people, some of whom are dangerous, we can ban them all."

 

The Justice Department argues Trump issued his order solely to protect national security.

 

Outside the Seattle courtroom a group of protesters gathered carrying signs with slogans including, "The ban is still racist" and "No ban, no wall."

 

Paez asked if an executive order detaining Japanese-Americans during the World War Two would pass muster under the government's current logic.

 

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said that the order from the 1940s, which is now viewed as a low point in U.S. civil rights history, would not be constitutional.

 

If Trump's executive order was the same as the one involving Japanese-Americans, Wall said: "I wouldn't be standing here, and the U.S. would not be defending it."

 

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins asked challengers to Trump's ban about the wide latitude held by U.S. presidents to decide who can enter the country.

 

"Why shouldn't we be deferential to what the president says?" Hawkins said.

 

"That is the million dollar question," said Katyal. A reasonable person would see Trump's statements as evidence of discriminatory intent, Katyal said.

 

In Washington, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said at a news briefing that the executive order is "fully lawful and will be upheld. We believe that."

 

The panel, made up entirely of judges appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton, reviewed a Hawaii judge's ruling that blocked parts of the Republican president's revised travel order.

 

LIKELY TO GO TO SUPREME COURT

 

The March order was Trump's second effort to craft travel restrictions. The first, issued on Jan. 27, led to chaos and protests at airports before it was blocked by courts. The second order was intended to overcome the legal problems posed by the original ban, but it was also suspended by judges before it could take effect on March 16.

 

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii blocked 90-day entry restrictions on people from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, as well as part of the order that suspended entry of refugee applicants for 120 days.

 

As part of that ruling, Watson cited Trump's campaign statements on Muslims as evidence that his executive order was discriminatory. The 9th Circuit previously blocked Trump's first executive order.

 

Last week the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia reviewed a Maryland judge's ruling that blocked the 90-day entry restrictions. That court is largely made up of Democrats, and the judges' questioning appeared to break along partisan lines. A ruling has not yet been released.

 

Trump's attempt to limit travel was one of his first major acts in office. The fate of the ban is one indication of whether the Republican can carry out his promises to be tough on immigration and national security.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to be the ultimate decider, but the high court is not expected to take up the issue for several months.

 

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton in Washington; Writing by Dan Levine and Mica Rosenberg; Editing by Dan Grebler and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-05-16

[lovelomsak]

It seems discrimination accusations are over used. If people do not get what they want they cry discrimination. 

It is ok to have discriminating tastes when it comes to wine,cigars,food,restaurants,hotels etc, but to chose people because of the problems they bring with them ,such as inability to assimilate or adjust to their new country,wanting the country to adjust to their needs is seen as  undesireable discrimination.Does not make sense to me.

[Credo]

2 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

It seems discrimination accusations are over used. If people do not get what they want they cry discrimination. 

It is ok to have discriminating tastes when it comes to wine,cigars,food,restaurants,hotels etc, but to chose people because of the problems they bring with them ,such as inability to assimilate or adjust to their new country,wanting the country to adjust to their needs is seen as  undesireable discrimination.Does not make sense to me.

I think discrimination concerning your wine, food and choice of cigars is a lot different than discriminating against an entire group of people.   You deciding what wine you like is a lot different than a President decided what group of people to exclude from a country.   

 

As far as the 'inability to assimilate', that can and does apply to a lot of groups of people.   Most of the Muslims I know have assimilated without any problem.    

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

It seems discrimination accusations are over used. If people do not get what they want they cry discrimination. 

It is ok to have discriminating tastes when it comes to wine,cigars,food,restaurants,hotels etc, but to chose people because of the problems they bring with them ,such as inability to assimilate or adjust to their new country,wanting the country to adjust to their needs is seen as  undesireable discrimination.Does not make sense to me.

 

20 minutes ago, Credo said:

I think discrimination concerning your wine, food and choice of cigars is a lot different than discriminating against an entire group of people.   You deciding what wine you like is a lot different than a President decided what group of people to exclude from a country.   

 

As far as the 'inability to assimilate', that can and does apply to a lot of groups of people.   Most of the Muslims I know have assimilated without any problem.    

The issue here is lovelomsak's ridiculous use of the word "discrimination'.  Like lots of words it has more than one meaning. Here's another word that illustrates my point: assimilate.  Lovelomsak contends that certain groups of immigrants have an inability to assimilate. I think it's clear the lovelomsak has an inability to assimilate information contrary to his beliefs. Therefore both immigrants and lovelomsak suffer from an inability to assimilate.

[Trouble]

Maybe the government should just ban all immigrants and refugees for a year until the country deals with all the illegals here now. Either let them stay and make them legal or figure out what is to be done.  Then figure out some kind of orderly immigration process.  What's so difficult about putting order to the chaos.  It is all petty politics and as usual the liberals expect someone other than themselves to pay the cost.  Since Hawaii is part of the legal action, send every refugee to Hawaii and let the State of Hawaii deal with the cost.  No federal help

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Trouble said:

Maybe the government should just ban all immigrants and refugees for a year until the country deals with all the illegals here now. Either let them stay and make them legal or figure out what is to be done.  Then figure out some kind of orderly immigration process.  What's so difficult about putting order to the chaos.  It is all petty politics and as usual the liberals expect someone other than themselves to pay the cost.  Since Hawaii is part of the legal action, send every refugee to Hawaii and let the State of Hawaii deal with the cost.  No federal help

There's chaos in immigration? Really? What chaos there is in the case of immigration is coming from the White House. Maybe that's where some sort of banning should be imposed.

[Scott]

34 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Maybe the government should just ban all immigrants and refugees for a year until the country deals with all the illegals here now. Either let them stay and make them legal or figure out what is to be done.  Then figure out some kind of orderly immigration process.  What's so difficult about putting order to the chaos.  It is all petty politics and as usual the liberals expect someone other than themselves to pay the cost.  Since Hawaii is part of the legal action, send every refugee to Hawaii and let the State of Hawaii deal with the cost.  No federal help

The number of people allowed to immigrate to the US is set by Congress, of that number, the President can chose a number to be admitted as refugees.   The states do not have a significant say in how many immigrants are allowed in or where they are resettled. 

[Traveler19491]

8 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Maybe the government should just ban all immigrants and refugees for a year until the country deals with all the illegals here now. Either let them stay and make them legal or figure out what is to be done.  Then figure out some kind of orderly immigration process.  What's so difficult about putting order to the chaos.  It is all petty politics and as usual the liberals expect someone other than themselves to pay the cost.  Since Hawaii is part of the legal action, send every refugee to Hawaii and let the State of Hawaii deal with the cost.  No federal help

 

EXACTLY!!! Thank you so much for that well-reasoned, thoroughly logical argument. And such a well thought out solution to boot! Why the feeble minds on the left haven't adopted such a simplistic approach to this vastly complex problem is beyond understanding.

 

Of course, there are the tiny little side issues that might develop. Like zillions of tons of agricultural products rotting in the fields due to the inability of farmers to procure laborers willing to work for slave wages. And offices and hotel rooms not getting cleaned, and fast-food franchises all going without workers. And the hundreds of billions of dollars involved in rounding up said illegal immigrants, a silly little complication pointed out by Charles Krauthammer when he spoke to the idiocy of Trump's proposal to round up and deport the 11 million illegal immigrants, stating that it could easily cost $500 billion or more. And then there are the thousands of US companies that utilize H-1B visas to bring in the talent that they need for their businesses to move forward. The loss to the U. S. economy would probably shake out to somewhere in the tens of billions, but who gives a rip, just so long as we don't have those pesky foreigners invading our shores? And of course, Hawaii should be penalized for being home to the judge who (correctly) ruled that this ban was motivated by religious bigotry. How dare he interpret the Constitution and Trump's (multiple) past statements to the effect of "banning all Muslims from entering the country" correctly? So, hell yes, make them suffer!

 

On a more realistic note, perhaps Trump and his idiot-savant minions should actually try incorporating the genuine principles of the Constitution into the crafting of a realistic immigration policy, and not some knee-jerk "solution" to a very real problem. Perhaps they should respond with compassion and recognition that most of these refugees are fleeing a situation that is life-threatening. Perhaps the right should try not being quite so terrified of an almost non-existent problem. You are more likely to be killed by your own furniture than you are by a foreign terrorist (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818). Trump's ban was not intended to solve the problem of illegal immigration. It was meant to address terrorism, so your entire comment is basically irrelevant. However, there are 200,000 deaths annually from medical mistakes in the U. S. I suppose you're more than willing to ban doctors? Since 9/11, your odds of dying from terrorism are less than 1 in 45,000. Your odds of dying from a cop shooting you are considerably higher...1 in 8,000. So, do we ban cops?

 

Illegal immigration is a very real problem. Terrorism is a very real problem. But neither are of the degree that hysterical right-wingers worry about. Both merit addressing, but neither by the Draconian measures that the right is demanding.

[thaibeachlovers]

From the OP.

That court is largely made up of Democrats, and the judges' questioning appeared to break along partisan lines.

The whole method by which judges are appointed makes the entire system political. Till the US can sort that and appoint impartial judges, the chaos will continue.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

 Perhaps the right should try not being quite so terrified of an almost non-existent problem. You are more likely to be killed by your own furniture than you are by a foreign terrorist (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818). Trump's ban was not intended to solve the problem of illegal immigration. It was meant to address terrorism, so your entire comment is basically irrelevant.

Perhaps one could consider that Trump is actually trying to ensure that it continues to be the situation that one would be more likely to be killed by your own furniture than you are by a foreign terrorist.

However, it seems to me that the opposition are more interested in scoring cheap shots against someone they hate than actually keeping out terrorists. Is anyone prepared to say that the present screening of people from countries known to host terrorists is actually capable of finding them among the hordes the liberals want to admit to the US?

 

[cashlamb99]

band them all no Muslims. in 20 yrs they will own America............

[cashlamb99]

band them all no Muslims. in 20 yrs they will own America............

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, cashlamb99 said:

band them all no Muslims. in 20 yrs they will own America............

ANd that's because Muslims have superpowers! X-Muslims.

[Traveler19491]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps one could consider that Trump is actually trying to ensure that it continues to be the situation that one would be more likely to be killed by your own furniture than you are by a foreign terrorist.

However, it seems to me that the opposition are more interested in scoring cheap shots against someone they hate than actually keeping out terrorists. Is anyone prepared to say that the present screening of people from countries known to host terrorists is actually capable of finding them among the hordes the liberals want to admit to the US?

 

 

Whether or not you intended to, your statement infers that other Presidents have not had the same level of determination to keep the current statistics at their existing level. I would point to the fact that, immediately after 9/11, when your odds of being killed by foreign terrorists multiplied exponentially, neither Bush II nor anyone in his administration suggested resorting to Draconian measures like banning all Muslims from entering the country. On the contrary. Bush, arguably one of the most conservative Presidents to that point, reached out to Muslims in his speech to the Islamic Center in Washington, DC on September 17, 2001, during which he assured Muslims in the U. S. that his administration would always be there to protect them and their rights. (Who would have ever thought that G. W. Bush would ever be looked upon as a voice of reason?) You can read the text of his comments here: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-george-w-bush-on-islam-20170131-htmlstory.html. I realize that your delicate sensitivities are offended by anyone having the temerity to criticize your orange messiah, but when someone blatantly demonstrates both their gargantuan ignorance of basic Constitutional principles, unimaginable indifference to the suffering of people fleeing almost certain death, and their hair-trigger readiness to abandon 240+ years of American empathy in favor of a threat that is so minimal as to be almost non-existent, well, that deserves criticism of the highest order, your tender feelings notwithstanding.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Traveler19491 said:

Whether or not you intended to, your statement infers that other Presidents have not had the same level of determination to keep the current statistics at their existing level. I would point to the fact that, immediately after 9/11, when your odds of being killed by foreign terrorists multiplied exponentially, neither Bush II nor anyone in his administration suggested resorting to Draconian measures like banning all Muslims from entering the country. On the contrary. Bush, arguably one of the most conservative Presidents to that point, reached out to Muslims in his speech to the Islamic Center in Washington, DC on September 17, 2001, during which he assured Muslims in the U. S. that his administration would always be there to protect them and their rights. (Who would have ever thought that G. W. Bush would ever be looked upon as a voice of reason?) You can read the text of his comments here: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-george-w-bush-on-islam-20170131-htmlstory.html. I realize that your delicate sensitivities are offended by anyone having the temerity to criticize your orange messiah, but when someone blatantly demonstrates both their gargantuan ignorance of basic Constitutional principles, unimaginable indifference to the suffering of people fleeing almost certain death, and their hair-trigger readiness to abandon 240+ years of American empathy in favor of a threat that is so minimal as to be almost non-existent, well, that deserves criticism of the highest order, your tender feelings notwithstanding.

You support Bush, the worst president, IMO, in my lifetime that brought in the Patriot act, the worst law in, probably, american history.

Of course Bush didn't mention Muslims, as he was in the pocket of the Saudis. He just lied to declare war against Iraq and sent troops to kill lots of Muslims.

 

BTW, legal refugees don't come from the war torn country they fled. They come from countries they have been sheltering in, so fleeing certain death is somewhat overstating the case.

 

their hair-trigger readiness to abandon 240+ years of American empathy

LOL. Tell that to the Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans and all the other Sth american countries the US has meddled in to the detriment of the population.

[Traveler19491]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You support Bush, the worst president, IMO, in my lifetime that brought in the Patriot act, the worst law in, probably, american history.

Of course Bush didn't mention Muslims, as he was in the pocket of the Saudis. He just lied to declare war against Iraq and sent troops to kill lots of Muslims.

 

BTW, legal refugees don't come from the war torn country they fled. They come from countries they have been sheltering in, so fleeing certain death is somewhat overstating the case.

 

their hair-trigger readiness to abandon 240+ years of American empathy

LOL. Tell that to the Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans and all the other Sth american countries the US has meddled in to the detriment of the population.

 

In future responses, it would be appreciated if you did not put words in my mouth. I have never indicated by any means that I "support" Bush. I merely referenced his contrasting support of Muslims in the US and Islam as a religion.

 

You are correct in that most refugees do not come from their native country (although there are a percentage who do). Fleeing certain death is, for some coming from the sheltering countries, still a reality due to the fact that those sheltering countries in some instances threaten to return them to their native countries if they are refused entry to the US. Those who are not returned live, in many cases (depending on where they have fled to) live in abysmal conditions worse than 3rd world.

 

My reference to "empathy" was regarding our immigration policies, not our politics. You might want to consider keeping things in context.

[YetAnother]

the 9th circuit in the usa has a long-standing reputation for being the most liberal in the usa

[Scott]

A toll post has been removed.   Please stay on topic.