Refugee Resettlement Watch

“Trump wins” on travel ban/refugee restrictions, or does he?

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 26, 2017

Update June 27, 2017: My random thoughts this morning, here.

Update #6: See what the NY Times has to say.

Update #5: Michael Leahy at Breitbart—it is a mess.

Update #4: UN not happy with US Supreme Court, here.

Update #3: Don’t pop the champagne yet says Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review.

Update #2:  See what former Rep. and Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann says here at WND.

Update: Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society says they are pleased with some of  the court’s conclusions, see here.

On the surface it might appear that the Trump Administration has won an important victory in the Supreme Court which ruled just a few hours ago on the so-called “travel ban” Executive Order, but in my view the Court has created an enormous bureaucratic mess, not to mention having re-written Refugee law! What were they thinking???

I know, I know, they will decide the case on the merits after hearing it next fall (and this decision does show where they are leaning), but from now until then there will be nothing but chaos and controversy relating to travel from the 6 countries and regarding the refugee admissions CEILING.  Remember readers, I am not a legal beagle, but the minute I heard some of the convoluted balancing of equities argument I thought my head would explode!

The gist of the decision is that Trump (the President) can halt immigration from the six (although incomplete list) of terror-producing countries unless the wannabe entrant (for any purpose) “can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

So, I guess  that means the court has decided in advance who the potential terrorists are and that they can’t possibly be someone who has a relative here already or is coming to college at the University of Hawaii (or any college) or connected to any “entity” (a VOLAG perhaps!).

Of greater interest to me is that, although Trump can have his refugee admissions ceiling of 50,000 (remember CEILING is not a target), but the ceiling can be surpassed (says the majority opinion) in the remaining months of this fiscal year  (up to September 30th) if the wannabe refugees have relatives here (what if 10,000, 20,000 and so forth have relatives here!).

Can you see the potential for fraud as all over the world, migrants wishing to get to America are scrambling to have relatives or a bona fide entity with which to associate themselves.

So, in effect the Supreme Court (led by Chief Justice Roberts) has just rewritten the Refugee Act of 1980!

The Act allows the President to exceed his designated ceiling (and here they agree it is 50,000!) only by making a case for an emergency and consulting with Congress.  Well, forget that! Looks like the Supreme Court is now determining the number of refugees to be admitted to America.

(I concede real lawyers might have a different interpretation, but reading the Court’s decision today one wonders if they read the Refugee Act!).

Here in the dissent written by Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch you can clearly see the bureaucratic and legal mess the Court has thrown to a State Department not firmly in the White House’s control, not to mention the parade of court cases the three dissenting Justices envision.

Here is the opinion.  I invite you all to make up your own minds, send comments with your analysis.

Here is the portion of the dissent that says it all:

 

20 Responses to ““Trump wins” on travel ban/refugee restrictions, or does he?”

  1. ljarvik said

    IMHO, the point of the ban is to make the affected governments put pressure on their cells while sending a message to other countries to the effect of, “Drive them out, or else!”

    Like

  2. Does the bona fide entity mean immediate family member or does it mean cousins and 2nd cousins? No details on this? Shame on these so called Smart legal minds. How about in laws???? But at least the resettlement agencies are in as much a pickle as the rest of us and it will take more money on their parts to get thru this legal debacle.

    Like

  3. I agree. This ‘bona fide’ condition is just a mess. SCOTUS threw that out there for the liberals as though the relatives of US citizens/LPRs have special rights.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. futuret said

    I AGREE, ANN MAY NOT HAVE A LAW DEGREE, BUT MOST PEOPLE WITH LAW DEGREES DO NOT EVEN HAVE COMMON SENSE. ANN IS VASTLY FAR MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THOSE WITH LAW DEGREES TURNING OUR LIVES INTO CHAOS. SHE WOULD DO BETTER THAN MOST IN A SYSTEM OF LAW. AT LEAST WITH ANN WE COULD COUNT ON OUR SAFETY!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Ann- you may not have a law degree, but I can think of no one else who has your vast knowledge and expertise when it comes to the refugee problem. Your analysis of the decision was spot on and I hope that someone in Trump’s administration reads it. In fact, I hope and pray that at least one of them, maybe Stephen Miller, is a regular reader of your blog. It would give me some hope which these days is in short supply vis a vis the unstoppable waves of incoming phony refugees and other ne’er do wells. Thanks as always.

    Liked by 3 people

    • dotsword said

      Ditto!

      I’m still trying to understand why Trump admin. even acknowledged any ‘powers’ at all — much less ceded to —
      these renegade Judges {or any Judge for that matter} when, by Law, POTUS & Congress have full authority [plenary authority] over immigration.

      POTUS should have pulled ‘an Obama’ and just gone ahead anyway & let the 9th Circuit bear the burden —

      what would they have done, show up at White House w/an arrest warrant? — geez

      Liked by 1 person

      • dotsword said

        — and of course the elephant in the room –

        this whole CEDING TO RENEGADE JUDGES in the first place has already set a very, VERY BAD PRECEDENT that no doubt we’ll see much more of in the future whenever some judge gets in a tizzy regarding ANY MATTER at all!

        I pray that POTUS Team has learned their lesson and FIRMLY STANDS THEIR GROUND from here on out, and let the Opposition deal with the burdens.

        Better yet, POTUS NEEDS TO PUT MICHELE BACHMANN ON THE TEAM!

        Like

        • Ann Corcoran said

          That Michele Bachmann is not in the Administration is a crying shame. I’d like to see her as Asst. Sec. of State for PRM!

          Liked by 1 person

          • ljarvik said

            That’s an excellent idea! Have you written a post to that effect? She’s a former Congresswoman, even though they hated her, she knows how it works…if she can’t get confirmed, then a special assistant to the President…please write a post with this idea we could retweet…

            Like

  6. Well-taken points, Ann. Thanks.And the court won’t even rule on the merits of the case until this Fall. Much mischief ahead, or so it seems.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Nancy McCabe said

    Still don’t feel it’s enough to keep us safe. The best example I can think of is Europe and the 32,000 refugees and home grown Jihad’s that come to U.S.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. futuret said

    FIRST OF ALL, NO MUSLIM SHOULD EVER HAVE ENTERED THIS COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS THE QURAN INSTRUCTS THEM OF KILL THOSE OF US THAT ARE NOT MUSLIMS. TRAVEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN MONITORED LIGHT YEARS AGO. REALIZE THAT MANY OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR SO CALLED GOVERNMENT HAVE ALREADY CONVERTED TO ISLAM, AND THAT INCLUDES GENERALS IN THE MILITARY. MANY OF THE TERRORISTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES ARE ALREADY HERE AND WAITING FOR A SIGNAL TO COMPLETELY DO US IN. TRAVEL BAN—COME ON, WHAT A JOKE!!! BY THE WAY, TRUMP ALREADY KNOWS THIS AND THEN SOME MORE THAN SOME OF US!!!

    Like

  9. Jim Horn said

    With millions of potential terrorists holding British, French, German, etc passports, they can come to America without having to get visas under the stupid visa waiver program. The Supremes’ decision is a minor dent in the Terrorist bucket..

    Like

  10. I am not replying to this particular article. I have a question, and do not see where else to ask. I apologize if I am causing an inconvenience. A few weeks ago, kmov in St Louis reported on 35 small businesses owned by muslim immigrants. They each received $15,000 small business loans, taxpayer funded. There was no oversight or repayment plan. These 35, who have been arrested, bought cigarettes in st. Louis, then transported them outside of the state, resold them for a profit, bought synthetic heroine and sold that. One driver was stopped with $240,000 in his possession. The news has dropped the story. Have you seen this? If I missed it in one of your posts, I apologize. I’ve been called a racist for repeating the story. Thank you.

    Like

  11. Having just read the opinion, I share your concerns. By the same token, I am encouraged by the Court’s ordering the parties to argue whether the individual plaintiff’s claim in the Washington case became moot on June 14th.

    I am also encouraged by the fact that the Court’s order to issue a stay is unanimous. Implicit in this is that even the most liberal of justices believe that the 4th and 9th Circuit decisions will be overturned.

    Like

    • Ann Corcoran said

      Yes, there was that bright spot—that Trump will most likely win on the merits in the fall. And, also encouraging is that the court did not apparently consider Trump’s campaign rhetoric!

      Liked by 1 person

  12. thetinfoilhatsociety said

    My husband brought up a good point: one, that ISIL has already commandeered 3 passport producing facilities in Syria, so it’s going to be next to impossible to vet where these people come from. Two, that all people have to do is travel to Europe and/or Canada and they’ll be able to get in anyway. So what is really the point on the ban?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: