|
Legal Analyst Jennifer Breedon & Homeland Security Analyst Ryan Mauro respond to:
Hawaii Judge blocking Trump's New Travel Ban
RYAN MAURO
NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, CLARION PROJECT
"President Trump has issued an executive order correcting his controversial travel restrictions incorrectly derided as a “Muslim ban.” Of course, despite major changes, groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are still calling it a “Muslim ban” and are committed to retaining the issue’s divisiveness so they can endlessly bash Trump as a bigot and raise their own profile in the process."
"This executive order, like the last order, is at its core a Muslim ban, which is discriminatory and unconstitutional," said the executive-director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, who nonetheless touted the revisions as a “partial victory.”
Ryan Mauro has put together 10 Points About Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions. (Available upon request).
Ryan Mauro has made over 1,000 appearances on international radio and TV programs from both the left of the right, including frequent segments on FOX News Channel, Al-Hurra, CCTV, Voice of America, Wall Street Journal Live, etc. He's been widely published and quoted in outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, The Hill, Roll Call and the Daily Caller.
Jennifer Breedon is an attorney and the legal analyst for the Clarion Project who studied National Security law under former US attorney general John Ashcroft.
"The revised Ban is not, and has never been, a Muslim Ban. The largest Muslim population is in Indonesia with other large populations of Muslims in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria and nearly a dozen other countries-none of whom are listed in the ban."
"Attorneys attempting to fight the order cite religious discrimination because of campaign rhetoric and statements of Rudy Giuliani and Steven Miller-Trump advisors. However, these stipulations don't come near to providing precedent for a extraneous intent than what is written in the temporary order."
"The intent is clearly stipulated In utilizing the same problematic vetting procedures referred to by the Obama administration which would require the judges to consider the intent of the Obama administration in listing the 6 countries listed on the temporary order to support arguments against the Executive Order."
"Finally, the legal arguments against the bill state that the ban on the UN refugee program is illegal because you can't "change the amount of refuses brought in." However, that argument also doesn't hold water because it temporarily halts the UN refugee program to assess the UN PROCESS and is a critique of the United Nations, not something to target refugees."
"Refugees currently undergo a 2-3 year US vetting process, so it's unlikely any will be affected by a temporary ban on the UN that's aimed to ensure deserving refugees can come to a United States that upholds the rule of law and protects its citizens and legal residents. Refugees I've spoken with prefer that America to an open doors "Germany."
Regarding the Hawaii ruling: "Judge Watson, the Hawaii federal judge who issued the first temporary restraining order, didn't rule on the actual constitutionality of Trump's ban but merely instituted the restraining order under the premise that "in Hawaii and his federal circuit (9th), orders of that nature would be likely to succeed on their merits (or "constitutionality")."
"In arguing about harming tourism or recruitment of foreign workers, the court should have considered that "irreperable harm" is simply not an issue with the new EO since it's stipulations are all temporary to address national security issues, which purely falls under the Executive Branch and the President."
"In fact, another U.S. federal judge, Theodore Chuang, stated "Do I need to conclude that the national security purpose is a sham and false?" which indicates some judges feel uncomfortable on addressing national security issues that fall outside the purview of courts when it comes to threats from nations that several U.S."
"Presidents have noted, inc including Barack Obama. Judge Robart in Washington, who ruled for the Temporary Order in the First Ban is interested only in "whether the ban violates federal immigration law, and whether the affected immigrants would be "irreparably harmed" should the ban go into effect" which could indicate that Judge Robart may go in a different direction, since his previous ruling was very clear on what his issues with the first order were and those centered on Permanent Residents and current green card holders - which is no longer an issue."
Jennifer R. Breedon is a legal analyst & attorney with specializations in International Criminal Law and First Amendment Laws, as well as human rights issues in South Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East. Jennifer provides legal analysis for topics involving international criminal law, human rights, and religious extremism from a registered Independent standpoint.
|
