Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Federal Judge Halts Trump’s Executive Action on Immigration
Following a chaotic day of airport protests, taxi work stoppages, and general anger about President Trump’s executive order to temporarily ban immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, a federal judge in New York has issued an emergency stay. From The Hill:
Published in Domestic Policy, Immigration, LawThe court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of two Iraqi men who were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Friday after Trump’s ban, The Verge reported Saturday night.
Since then both men, Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshaw, have been granted entry to the U.S.
The ruling deals with a portion of Trump’s order handed down Friday, which bars Syrian refugees indefinitely and halts the resettlement of all refugees for four months as the administration reviews the vetting process.
Admission will resume only after vetting has been deemed “adequate” by the secretary of State, the secretary of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence.
I agree. As I’ve said a number of times now, this is a tempest in a teapot. A simple clarification will do it.
I think the optics of openly defying the court order would be a bad move–especially because there has not even been a final ruling on the merits. A lot of moderate Trump supporters believed he would be the “law and order” candidate, so that strategy could backfire. He should litigate the case hard and emphasize DHS’s exception for Green Card holders. Where possible, he should make other accommodations that seem reasonable. If he does that, he can win in the courts and then he will be in a much stronger position.
NYLib, your point is a good one. But we need a bit of defiance of judicial authoritarianism. I say it’s broccoli, and to hell with it.
Do you realize what such defiance entails? U.S. Marshals arresting DHS agents for criminal contempt? Trump making his subordinates take the hit while he sits comfortably in the White House or Trump Tower? Your approach is fine in the abstract, but gets very messy in the real world.
More importantly, it is a weak move, not a strong one–it’s like taking your ball and going home or knocking all the pieces off of a board game because you don’t like how things are going. Little, weak kids do those things. And I submit that, if you are going to defy “judicial authoritarianism,” you should pick a better target than a temporary restraining order preserving the status quo so that a decision on the merits can be made.
Agree with this.
Bowing to extra-legal dictates by judges overstepping boundaries doesn’t facilitate the “law and order” aspect of anyone with appropriate authority to do what they are doing.
They fixed the issue the court was concerned about and the admin is fully within its rights to proceed without violating law.
So what? Continue to allow the judiciary to act outside of their legally defined role? What are checks and balances if no one ACTUALLY checks and balances?
We want so badly to restore limited government, thinking the primary issue is the executive and legislative branches. But the biggest culprit outside Abraham Lincoln’s war to destroy state’s rights has been an extra-legal court that writes federal law from the bench, obliterating state nullification.
Its a worthy fight. I may question the timing while the Admin is taking on the media stranglehold and information brought to the citizenry, but as I am not a strategist, I take a back seat in that discussion.
What evidence do you have that the judge is acting extra-legally here?
I’m sorry but adjudicating legal disputes like this is the very reason the judiciary exists. This all could have been avoided had the Administration put even a modicum of thought and planning into this.
Many comments presenting law and precedent have shown the executive power has the right to act in immigration matters.
Which means the judiciary has no constitutional grounding outside the questionable green card issue that the administration walked back.
This doesn’t really track with the way immigration law has evolved over the years. Congress has passed numerous laws that have established the standards for admittance to the United States. Trump himself even sighted the Immigration Act of 1952 as a governing authority – so clearly the White House recognizes that they are not the sole authority when it comes to immigration.
Furthermore, the acts of the judge in this case were done so that those affected by the order can seek legal remedy – something very much within the scope and power of the judiciary. The judge only put a temporary stay on part of the order while the case was adjudicated, he didn’t overturn it in permanently.
I have decided not to have an opinion about this today. (Assuming it is not contrary to the CoC to do so.)
I changed my mind after reading Rep. Justin Amash’s statement on Facebook. Now I have an opinion, though it’s not exactly the same as Rep. Amash’s:
If Congress wants to assert control over immigration policy, it’s fine with me. I’d like to see Congress assert control over almost any of the powers it has delegated to the administrative branch. Doing so would require reasserting control over the budget, too.
Is there any value to the optics and outcome of Republicans opposing part orvall of this order?
Supposing Trump could handle the fight?
Everyone says he’s a negotiator, and that one tactic is to go big, then negotiate to something mutually agreeable.
I never used to think like that, but now I’m always wondering, “What is the next scene in this script.”
That’s really just the final form of statism.