Immigrant order chaos

Should the ban be reinstated?

On 6th Feb 2017, US Department of Justice defended President Donald Trump's travel ban and urged the Appeals Court to reinstate it, in the interests of national security. A hearing has been set for Tuesday, on whether to allow or reject the ban. The filing was made to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the halting of President Trump's order on Friday by a Federal Judge, in Washington State.

Department of Justice Perspective

Arguments made were:

• The President is best placed to make decisions about national security.

• The executive order is "neutral” with respect to religion. It is "incorrect" to call it a ban on Muslims because the seven countries were identified for their terror risk.

• Aliens outside the US have no rights to due process.

• The Department of Justice argued that the Washington Court had erred in entering an injunction barring enforcement of the order.

The Federal Judge’s Perspective

The states of Washington and Minnesota argued in the Federal Court that the travel ban was harmful to their residents, businesses and universities and that it was discriminatory. The Judge ruled the ban was unconstitutional and harmful to the state's interests. Friday’s ruling allowed people from the seven countries - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - with valid visas to travel to the US again.

Assessment

President Donald Trump, in his informal responses has repeatedly used “Islamic Terrorism”, to justify the new immigration order. By prefixing terrorism with ‘Islamic’, the context becomes discriminatory and hence possibility volatile of the US Constitution. However, in the text of the order, Islam has not been used. The Federal Court in Washington will now on Tuesday hear the case to determine if the Presidential Order is legitimate in the eyes of the US Constitution.