SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
We'll See You in Court, 2.0: Once a Muslim Ban, Still a Muslim Ban
If a Muslim Ban is cleaned up to exclude Iraq, exempt lawful permanent residents and other current visa holders, is it still a Muslim ban? That's the question presented by President Donald Trump's decision to replace his original executive order, enjoined by the courts, with a new one. The administration's decision to abandon the old order is wise; every judge but one who had reviewed it found it raised grave constitutional concerns.
Mar 06, 2017
If a Muslim Ban is cleaned up to exclude Iraq, exempt lawful permanent residents and other current visa holders, is it still a Muslim ban? That's the question presented by President Donald Trump's decision to replace his original executive order, enjoined by the courts, with a new one. The administration's decision to abandon the old order is wise; every judge but one who had reviewed it found it raised grave constitutional concerns. The new order will be less catastrophic in its roll-out than the first, both because it exempts those who already have visas and because it will not go into effect until March 16. But it's still religious discrimination in the pre-textual guise of national security. And it's still unconstitutional.
As I've written before, Trump has repeatedly made crystal clear his intent to ban Muslims from entering the United States. As a candidate, he stated several times that he intended, if elected, to ban Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. He has never repudiated that commitment. When confronted with the fact that his proposal would violate the Constitution, Trump said on NBC's Meet the Press in July, that he would use territory as a proxy for religion. And, when asked after his election victory whether he still intended to ban Muslim immigrants from the United States, President-elect Trump confirmed that was still his plan. Two days after the original Executive Order was issued, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an advisor to President Trump, stated that then-candidate Trump had asked him for help in "legally" creating a "Muslim ban"; and that, in response, Mr. Giuliani and others decided to use territory as a proxy; and that this idea is reflected in the signed Order. There is overwhelming evidence that the most recent Executive Order was likewise intended to discriminate against Muslims.
"The fact that the government has repackaged the ban does not alter its intent or effect - to target members of a particular religion. And the purported national security justifications for doing so have been refuted by none other than the DHS itself."First, it continues to target only countries that are predominantly Muslim. All of the six countries targeted by the immigration ban are over 90 percent Muslim. Second, it does so without a valid security justification. Trump's own Department of Homeland Security recently concluded that an individual's "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity" and that "few of the impacted countries [under the EO] have terrorist groups that threaten the West." Third, on February 21, White House advisor Stephen Miller explained that any changes to the first executive order would be "mostly minor, technical differences....Fundamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcome for the country." Exempting lawful permanent residents, and others with visas, does nothing to alter the purpose or design of disfavoring a specific religion.
So the new executive order is, like the old executive order, intended to target Muslims. That intent violates the first principle of the Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from singling out particular religions for favor or disfavor (Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 247 (1982)). The fact that the government has repackaged the ban does not alter its intent or effect - to target members of a particular religion. And the purported national security justifications for doing so have been refuted by none other than the DHS itself.
The executive order has other flaws as well. For example, it maintains the first executive order's unilateral reduction to the annual level of refugee admissions, cutting it from 110,000 to 50,000. That reduction, imposed unilaterally by the president without consultation with Congress, is unauthorized. The immigration statute does not allow the president to order a mid-year reduction in the level of refugee admissions--an action no president has ever done before--much less to do so without consulting Congress. To the contrary, it states expressly that the "number of refugees who may be admitted" in a particular fiscal year "shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest." 8 U.S.C. SS 1157(a)(2). The Republicans objected strenuously to President Barack Obama's allegedly unilateral decision not to prioritize the deportation of certain undocumented people here. But Obama was exercising prosecutorial discretion expressly granted to him. In unilaterally reducing the annual level of refugees admitted to the US, at a time of virtually unprecedented world need for refugee placements, Trump is not only acting unilaterally, but in violation of the statute that establishes the process for setting the cap in the first place.
President Trump, we'll see you in court.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Just Security
David Cole
David Cole is the National Legal Director of the ACLU and the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at the Georgetown University Law Center. His most recent book is "Engines of Liberty: How Citizen Movements Succeed" (April 2019). He is also the author of "The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable" (New Press).
If a Muslim Ban is cleaned up to exclude Iraq, exempt lawful permanent residents and other current visa holders, is it still a Muslim ban? That's the question presented by President Donald Trump's decision to replace his original executive order, enjoined by the courts, with a new one. The administration's decision to abandon the old order is wise; every judge but one who had reviewed it found it raised grave constitutional concerns. The new order will be less catastrophic in its roll-out than the first, both because it exempts those who already have visas and because it will not go into effect until March 16. But it's still religious discrimination in the pre-textual guise of national security. And it's still unconstitutional.
As I've written before, Trump has repeatedly made crystal clear his intent to ban Muslims from entering the United States. As a candidate, he stated several times that he intended, if elected, to ban Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. He has never repudiated that commitment. When confronted with the fact that his proposal would violate the Constitution, Trump said on NBC's Meet the Press in July, that he would use territory as a proxy for religion. And, when asked after his election victory whether he still intended to ban Muslim immigrants from the United States, President-elect Trump confirmed that was still his plan. Two days after the original Executive Order was issued, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an advisor to President Trump, stated that then-candidate Trump had asked him for help in "legally" creating a "Muslim ban"; and that, in response, Mr. Giuliani and others decided to use territory as a proxy; and that this idea is reflected in the signed Order. There is overwhelming evidence that the most recent Executive Order was likewise intended to discriminate against Muslims.
"The fact that the government has repackaged the ban does not alter its intent or effect - to target members of a particular religion. And the purported national security justifications for doing so have been refuted by none other than the DHS itself."First, it continues to target only countries that are predominantly Muslim. All of the six countries targeted by the immigration ban are over 90 percent Muslim. Second, it does so without a valid security justification. Trump's own Department of Homeland Security recently concluded that an individual's "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity" and that "few of the impacted countries [under the EO] have terrorist groups that threaten the West." Third, on February 21, White House advisor Stephen Miller explained that any changes to the first executive order would be "mostly minor, technical differences....Fundamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcome for the country." Exempting lawful permanent residents, and others with visas, does nothing to alter the purpose or design of disfavoring a specific religion.
So the new executive order is, like the old executive order, intended to target Muslims. That intent violates the first principle of the Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from singling out particular religions for favor or disfavor (Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 247 (1982)). The fact that the government has repackaged the ban does not alter its intent or effect - to target members of a particular religion. And the purported national security justifications for doing so have been refuted by none other than the DHS itself.
The executive order has other flaws as well. For example, it maintains the first executive order's unilateral reduction to the annual level of refugee admissions, cutting it from 110,000 to 50,000. That reduction, imposed unilaterally by the president without consultation with Congress, is unauthorized. The immigration statute does not allow the president to order a mid-year reduction in the level of refugee admissions--an action no president has ever done before--much less to do so without consulting Congress. To the contrary, it states expressly that the "number of refugees who may be admitted" in a particular fiscal year "shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest." 8 U.S.C. SS 1157(a)(2). The Republicans objected strenuously to President Barack Obama's allegedly unilateral decision not to prioritize the deportation of certain undocumented people here. But Obama was exercising prosecutorial discretion expressly granted to him. In unilaterally reducing the annual level of refugees admitted to the US, at a time of virtually unprecedented world need for refugee placements, Trump is not only acting unilaterally, but in violation of the statute that establishes the process for setting the cap in the first place.
President Trump, we'll see you in court.
David Cole
David Cole is the National Legal Director of the ACLU and the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at the Georgetown University Law Center. His most recent book is "Engines of Liberty: How Citizen Movements Succeed" (April 2019). He is also the author of "The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable" (New Press).
If a Muslim Ban is cleaned up to exclude Iraq, exempt lawful permanent residents and other current visa holders, is it still a Muslim ban? That's the question presented by President Donald Trump's decision to replace his original executive order, enjoined by the courts, with a new one. The administration's decision to abandon the old order is wise; every judge but one who had reviewed it found it raised grave constitutional concerns. The new order will be less catastrophic in its roll-out than the first, both because it exempts those who already have visas and because it will not go into effect until March 16. But it's still religious discrimination in the pre-textual guise of national security. And it's still unconstitutional.
As I've written before, Trump has repeatedly made crystal clear his intent to ban Muslims from entering the United States. As a candidate, he stated several times that he intended, if elected, to ban Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. He has never repudiated that commitment. When confronted with the fact that his proposal would violate the Constitution, Trump said on NBC's Meet the Press in July, that he would use territory as a proxy for religion. And, when asked after his election victory whether he still intended to ban Muslim immigrants from the United States, President-elect Trump confirmed that was still his plan. Two days after the original Executive Order was issued, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an advisor to President Trump, stated that then-candidate Trump had asked him for help in "legally" creating a "Muslim ban"; and that, in response, Mr. Giuliani and others decided to use territory as a proxy; and that this idea is reflected in the signed Order. There is overwhelming evidence that the most recent Executive Order was likewise intended to discriminate against Muslims.
"The fact that the government has repackaged the ban does not alter its intent or effect - to target members of a particular religion. And the purported national security justifications for doing so have been refuted by none other than the DHS itself."First, it continues to target only countries that are predominantly Muslim. All of the six countries targeted by the immigration ban are over 90 percent Muslim. Second, it does so without a valid security justification. Trump's own Department of Homeland Security recently concluded that an individual's "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity" and that "few of the impacted countries [under the EO] have terrorist groups that threaten the West." Third, on February 21, White House advisor Stephen Miller explained that any changes to the first executive order would be "mostly minor, technical differences....Fundamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcome for the country." Exempting lawful permanent residents, and others with visas, does nothing to alter the purpose or design of disfavoring a specific religion.
So the new executive order is, like the old executive order, intended to target Muslims. That intent violates the first principle of the Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from singling out particular religions for favor or disfavor (Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 247 (1982)). The fact that the government has repackaged the ban does not alter its intent or effect - to target members of a particular religion. And the purported national security justifications for doing so have been refuted by none other than the DHS itself.
The executive order has other flaws as well. For example, it maintains the first executive order's unilateral reduction to the annual level of refugee admissions, cutting it from 110,000 to 50,000. That reduction, imposed unilaterally by the president without consultation with Congress, is unauthorized. The immigration statute does not allow the president to order a mid-year reduction in the level of refugee admissions--an action no president has ever done before--much less to do so without consulting Congress. To the contrary, it states expressly that the "number of refugees who may be admitted" in a particular fiscal year "shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest." 8 U.S.C. SS 1157(a)(2). The Republicans objected strenuously to President Barack Obama's allegedly unilateral decision not to prioritize the deportation of certain undocumented people here. But Obama was exercising prosecutorial discretion expressly granted to him. In unilaterally reducing the annual level of refugees admitted to the US, at a time of virtually unprecedented world need for refugee placements, Trump is not only acting unilaterally, but in violation of the statute that establishes the process for setting the cap in the first place.
President Trump, we'll see you in court.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.