CA attorney gives his opinion on Trump’s EO and district court ruling

Tags

Donald Trump, executive Order, extreme vetting, federal law, Illegal Immigration, Islamic Terrorism, jihadist breeding grounds, middle-east, state law, Temporary Restraining Order

Editor’s Note: I am re-posting the following email verbatim received last night from Robert Trent on Washington state federal Judge James L. Robart’s issuance of an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) nationwide that blocks President Trump’s executive order from being carried out.

screenshot

Written by:  Lawyer, CA politician (one of the good guys) —

On the Seattle Judge’s ruling against the Trump Exec Order.

1. The Judge is incredibly wrong.
2. The Judge found that “The executive order adversely affects the state’s residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel,” Robart wrote, adding that the order also harmed the state’s public universities and tax base. “These harms are significant and ongoing.”
3. Note the following:

(a) Immigration is the province of the federal government not the states. According to the Supreme Court “The right to [exclude aliens] stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

(b) Federal immigration law provides, in Section 1182(f), that “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he 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”

(c) Under Section 1187(a)(12), (an Obama era law) it provides that an alien is eligible for the waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria any time after March 1, 2011; (b) in any country whose government is designated by the State Department as “repeatedly provid[ing] support for acts of international terrorism”; or (c) in any country that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a country “of concern.”

Obviously, Trump’s executive is grounded firmly in the above.

(d) The Judge’s rational could be used to “block” every immigration/nation defense related law ever made let alone executive orders. Of course, federal actions of that type affect individuals within states. Really every federal law could be said to do that. It doesn’t matter if they do, however, because federal law on that topic supersedes state law and concerns.

(e) Even if the above were not true, the Judge made that finding without providing any factual basis – he just said it will have that effect.

If the Supreme Court does not overturn the order – just like this order, it will be another sad political day in the Courts.

Please share.

Croos-posted at Grumpy Opinions.