9TH CIRCUIT TO HEAR ARGUMENTS ON TRUMP TRAVEL BAN: HIGH TECH COMPANIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS WEIGH IN

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

By Miriam Raftery

February 6, 2017 (San Diego) – The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday refused to halt refugees and citizens from 7 Muslim nations from entering the U.S., CNN reports.  The action follows a decision Friday by federal judge James Robart in Washington State that blocked President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The Appeals Court has asked for briefs from both sides by the close of business today and has already received numerous friends of the court briefs arguing that the ban hurts businesses and states’ economies, also putting U.S. troops and national security at risk.

Trump’s twitter storm: Trump attacked Judge Robart, a conservative appointed by George W. Bush, as a “so-called judge.”  He went on to accuse Robart of putting the country in “peril” and suggested people should blame the court if “something happens.”  He also tweeted “People pouring in. Bad!”

Sleepless in Seattle:  Washington State’s Attorney General has had staff working around the clock.  Washington Governor Jay Inslee called Trump’s ban on travel from Muslim countries “religious discrimination in its barest and most obvious form, adding, “It is clearly religiously discriminatory when the president himself said, `We’re going to say Muslims are at the bottom of the barrel, other religions are at the top.’”

Gov. Inslee recalled when Bainbridge Island off Washington was used to detain Japanese-Americans during World War II.  “I know from Bainbridge Island what fear can do, and I know that Americans need to stand up against this today, across America.”

Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson has argued the order is illegal and would also cause “irreparable harm to Washington” against the public interest. He called it “executive abuse.”

High-tech companies and others back Washington state:  Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, AirBnB, Amazon, Twitter, Uber, Lyft and other major companies filed an amicus brief or friend of the court filing voicing opposition to President Trump’s executive order on immigration on the grounds that it is discriminatory and has a negative impact on their businesses, Tech Crunch reports.

Amazon indicated 49 of its employees were born in the countries from which travel is banned under the order, including a senior Amazon lawyer born in Libya. The company has put a hold on new hires from nations on the list.  Expedia says has incurred added business costs due to the ban.

Security officials and diplomats submit brief:  A brief arguing that the travel ban “undermines” national security and wil “endanger U.S. troops in the field” has been submitted to the court by former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, along with former secretary of defense and CIA director Leon Panetta, ex-CIA director John McLaughlin and Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor, among others.  They warn that what’s putting America at peril is Trump’s order, not refugees and immigrants.  The travel ban also stands to disrupt “key counterterrorism, foreign policy and national security partnerships” crucial to obtaining intelligence and could “endanger intelligence sources in the field.”

While all agreed that vetting is important to prevent real threats from terrorists, the national security experts agreed that since Sept. 11, 2001, not a single terrorist act in the U.S. has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the order. “The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens,” they observed.

Justice Dept. to avoid asking Supreme Court to decide case, for now:  The Washington Post reports that a Justice Dept. spokesman has said the Trump administration legal team will let the “appeals process play out” rather than ask the Supreme Court to issue an immediate stay.

If the Supreme Court is asked to weigh in, it is far from certain what the outcome would be, with the court split 4-4 down ideological lines and the late Justice Anthony Scalia’s seat still open. Republicans refused to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, obstructing filling the vacancy for a full year in an unprecedented action. Now Democrats are working to block Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

 

Comments

Very different circumstances.

Japan had attacked the US on US soil.  Even so,  while barring entry to new immigrants was one thing, the US went farther and rounded up/interned Japanese-Americans on the West Coast. They lost their homes and property in many cases,  never to be restored.  That action has in hindsight been viewed as wrong.

Ronald Reagan signed an Act apologizing for the U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans:  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-times-united-states-offici...

The judge who issued the temporary block on Trump's order said he found no "rational" reason. Particularly with the refugees, of 800,000 refugees admitted to the US since 911, not a single one has committed an act of terror on US soil. Nor has an green card holder from any of those countries that Trump wants to ban.

There have been acts of terror in Europe and other countries,  but those countries do NOT have the vetting process that the U.S. has. Many people entered Europe in boats etc. with zero vetting.  This has not occurred in the U.S.

If there is any room for additional scrutiny it should be not on refugees already vetted, but on perhaps deeper checks on students, brides, etc. coming here to assure they don't have terror ties.  The refugees have been terrorized by ISIS and hate them as much as people here do.

We were at war with Vietnam yet still air lifted Vietnamese boat people refugees to the U.S.  We did not demonize everyone from that nation, if you want a closer analogy, even as we were fighting against the Vietcong.

Also, in determining this is intended as a Muslim ban,  the judge is examining Trump's own statements on the campaign trail, when he repeatedly called for a ban on Muslims despite being told this was not constitutional.  Rudy Giuliani has said Trump asked him for advice on how to ban Muslims and make it appear legal. So it's obvious his intent was to single out a religion. To make it look less unconstitutional,  he narrowed that to just 7 nations in the final order, though if keeping terrorists out was the goal he shoud have included Saudi Arabia, since most of the 911 hijackers came from there, and the Saudis continue to fund and support terror groups. Trump has a hotel there though.

 

 

When the US refused to admit Japanese in WWII

was it a Shinto Ban? The US reported that it dropped 26,171 bombs last year on six of the seven countries listed plus Afghanistan (not mentioned). Iran gets "honorable mention" because it has been a US whipping boy for forty years. Turns out that Washington didn't report many other bombs and explosive rockets used to kill people in those countries. . . .They are all Muslim countries, by the way. . . .So it's not really a "Muslim Ban" it's a ninety day suspension of visas on the citizens of countries the US is at war with; kind of puts it in a different light. Of course it's not anti-Trump, that puts the truth at a disadvantage. Except that Trump didn't start these wars that seem endless, if anybody cares.