/
CONSTITUTIONAL  ISSUES  ASSOCIATED  WITH  PRESIDENT  TRUMP’S  “ CONSTITUTIONAL  ISSUES  ASSOCIATED  WITH  PRESIDENT  TRUMP’S  “

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S “ - PowerPoint Presentation

pasty-toler
pasty-toler . @pasty-toler
Follow
363 views
Uploaded On 2018-03-18

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S “ - PPT Presentation

TRAVEL BAN A Presentation for World Without Genocide By Prof Anthony S Winer Mitchell Hamline School of Law August 30 2017 Executive Order No 13769 January 27 2017 Had these effects among others ID: 656270

entry order aliens trump order entry trump aliens 2017 president muslim constitutional ban religion 2016 candidate refugees executive government

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S “TRAVEL BAN”

A Presentation for World Without Genocide

By Prof. Anthony S. Winer

Mitchell Hamline School of Law

August 30, 2017Slide2

Executive Order No. 13769 (January 27, 2017).

Had these effects, among others:

Barred entry of aliens from 7 countries for 90 days

(Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen).

Reduced number of refugees to be admitted in 2017

from 110,000 to 50,000.

Barred indefinitely the entry of Syrian refugees.

Ordered 120-day suspension of U.S. Refugee Admissions

Program.

Ordered Secretary of State to prioritize refugee claims by

individuals on the basis of religion-based persecution

when that was a minority religion in their home country.Slide3

Executive Order No. 13780 (March 6, 2017).

Was very similar to the first order, except for certain

nominal modifications:

- There were 6 countries, not 7

;

Iraq was removed.

The 90-day exclusion didn’t apply to resident

legal aliens

The 90-day ban didn’t apply to anyone who had

validly obtained a visa prior to the effective date of

the first order; those persons would not be barred entry.

The second order does not include the indefinite

ban on Syrian refugees

The second order does not contain the

distinction favoring Christian refugeesSlide4

Statements during campaign and shortly after election

December 7, 2015

: Candidate Trump’s “Statement on

Preventing Muslim Immigration” called for “a total and complete

shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S. until our representatives can

figure out what is going on.”

March 9, 2016

: In an interview, Candidate Trump said:

“Islam hates us,” and “We can’t allow people coming into this

country who have this hatred.”

July 17, 2016

: In response to a tweet criticizing immigration bans

for Muslims, Candidate Trump said: “So you call it territories. OK?

We’re

gonna

do territories.”

July 24, 2016

: In response to a question about whether he was rolling back his Muslim ban, Candidate Trump said: “People are so upset when I use the word Muslim, [so I am] talking territory instead of Muslim.”Slide5

Statements, continued

December 21, 2016

: Upon being asked whether recent

attacks in Europe affected his proposed Muslim ban,

President-elect Trump said: “You know my plans. All along,

I’ve proven to be right. 100% correct.”

January 27, 2017

: As President Trump was signing the

first order, he read out the title (“Protection of the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”), and

then said: “We all know what that means.”

January 28, 2017

: Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani said

that President Trump said that “when [Trump] first

announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up.

He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way

to do it legally.’”Slide6

POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE ONE: Standing

As a result of the government action complained of,

the plaintiff must have:

“- suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest

- that is concrete and particularized

- and actual or imminent,

- not conjectural or hypothetical.”

-

Spokeo

v. Robins

, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016).Slide7

To avoid invalidation of a government act under the Establishment Clause, the government must show:

- That the challenged action has a secular legislative purpose;

- That its principal or primary effect is one that neither

advances nor inhibits religion; and

- That it does not foster an excessive government

Entanglement with religion.

-

Lemon v. Kurtzman

, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971)

POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE TWO:

Establishment ClauseSlide8

POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE THREE: Establishment Clause

“Under the ‘Endorsement Test,’ any endorsement of religion is

Invalid, because it ‘sends a message to non-adherents that

they are outsiders, not full members of the political

community, and an accompanying message to adherents that

they are insiders, favored members of the political

community.’”

-

Allegheny County v. ACLU

, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).Slide9

POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE FOUR: Separation of Powers

INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f):

“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

nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any

restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

[emphasis added]

Slide10

Exec. Order No. 13780, § 2(c):

The President proclaims

that the unrestricted entry into the U.S. of nationals of the

six states would be “detrimental to the interests of the

United States,” asserting that the restrictions are necessary:

- To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant

agencies during the review period [prescribed by the

Executive Order]; - To ensure the proper review and maximum utilization

available resources for the screening and vetting of foreign

nationals;

- To ensure that adequate standards are established to

prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists; and

- In light of the national security concerns referenced in

the Executive Order.