Trump's new order is still a Muslim ban

DRESS IT up anyway you want, but If it looks like a Muslim ban, sounds like a Muslim ban and acts like a Muslim ban; it's a Muslim ban.
The Trump administration's attempt to disguise their travel restrictions to countries by adding three more countries  can't hide the fact that the original six countries, predominantly Muslim, are still on the list.

"Let us not be fooled by the Administration's guise of 'Making America Safe.'" said Monica Thammarath, national president of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance. "This order is yet another attempt of a Muslim Ban and does the exact opposite of making us safe."

Opponents of Trump’s immigration policies have announced plans for a NoMuslimBanEver rally on Oct. 18.

As Travel Ban 2.0 expired Sunday, the administration issued a new order - Travel Ban 3.0 - to take its place. Sudan, which was on the original list, was dropped from this expanded list. Besides Iran, Libya, Somalia Syria and Yeman, North Korea, Chad and Venezuela has been added.

As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it has postponed the oral arguments on Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0 to determine the constitutionality of the executive order. Arguments were supposed to be presented Oct. 10.

At the request from the administration's Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, the justices request supplemental briefs from both sides by Oct. 5 because of the new version of the travel ban. In the letter, the Filipino/American attorney emphasized that part of the March travel ban had expired, and the administration is putting in place the new restrictions after a worldwide review.

“Six of President Trump’s targeted countries are Muslim," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The fact that Trump has added North Korea—with few visitors to the U.S.—and a few government officials from Venezuela doesn’t obfuscate the real fact that the administration’s order is still a Muslim ban,” he said in a statement. “President Trump’s original sin of targeting Muslims cannot be cured by throwing other countries onto his enemies list.”

The U.S. receives almost zero applications from North Korea. In fact, its government bans travel to the United States.

I don't understand why Venezuela  made the list. When was the last time that South American country sent terrorists to the U.S? The restrictions for Venezuela  only apply to about 100 people closely associated with its current rulers.

"Adding new countries to a ban that baselessly vilifies whole populations does nothing to change the fact that this is still government-sanctioned discrimination," said Naureen Shah of Amnesty International USA. "These restrictions will likely introduce further uncertainty for ordinary people who rely on the ability to travel, study and work in the US. Amnesty will be monitoring to see the effects of this revised ban on the lives of men, women and children around the world."

Elica Vafaie of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, called the new travel ban “nonsensical” and “unconstitutional at its core.”

“Despite the president’s attempt to obscure this latest Muslim ban’s discriminatory intent, the newest policy remains discriminatory, unlawful, and unconstitutional at its core and deeply impacts our communities,” Vafaie said.

“This new nonsensical ban continues to discriminate against immigrants, refugees, and visitors from a group of majority Muslim countries.”

______________________________________________________________________________

What's next after Trump travel restrictions expire today?

Donald Trump's travel restrictions sparked demonstrations across the country.

THE TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS placed on six predominantly Muslim countries expire today, Sunday (Sept. 24), and it is uncertain what the Trump administration will do next.
Officials from the Department of Homeland Security did not reveal any specifics but it is expected that the administration will expand the list to include other countries besides the original six.

The DHS submitted its recommendations to the White House on Sept. 15. The new restrictions will vary by country and could include a ban on travel to the United States, or new restrictions on obtaining a visa for citizens of particular countries, said a DHS official to The Wall Street Journal.

Miles Taylor, counselor to the secretary of Homeland Security, told reporters that acting Secretary Elaine Duke has recommended restrictions that are "tough" and "tailored," but "temporary and may lifted again as circumstances change."

The White House declined to confirm details about the new proposals, but said in a statement Friday: "The Trump administration will ensure we only admit those who can be properly vetted and will not pose a threat to national security or public safety."

The original controversial Muslim ban imposed by Donald Trump's administration was intended to be limited to 90 days and affected travelers from Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Syria.

Federal courts heard and mostly agreed to challenges to the constitutionality of the original executive order to restrict travel from the six countries saying it discrminated against followers of Islam. The order was rewritten by the administration to remove the religious aspect but the second order was also challenged in the courts.

By the time the administration was able to write something that was half-way acceptable to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court it was already July 7 and a few weeks left until the 90-day deadline.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments are currently scheduled for 10 October, but the replacement of the ban with other restrictions could render the case moot.

________________________________________________________________________________

Immigrants continue to make America great

IF NOT for immigrants, Silicon Valley could still be filled with fruit orchards and U.S. hospitals would lose over a quarter of its workforce.

Without immigrants and their families, there would be no Tesla, no Yahoo, no EBay and no Apple. Hospitals would be dangerously short staffed. Research and development, which creates jobs and the economy of the future, would be impaired and the United States would lose its position as the world's economic powerhouse.

Forty-two percent of California’s workers in science, technology, engineering and math occupations were born in a foreign nation, according a recent analysis by the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

“The importance of foreign-born workers in STEM occupations cannot be overstated,” according to the same report. “As the demand for STEM workers continues to increase, foreign-born STEM workers will play a key role in U.S. productivity and innovation.”

The study, “Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States.” looked at the occupational, gender, educational and geographic distribution of foreign-born STEM workers in the U.S., using 2015 survey data by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Most of Donald Trump's immigration measures have been focusing in securing our borders and adding further restrictions against Muslims and refugees from six countries. His rhetoric and the actions taken by his administration have given rise to an anti-immigrant sentiment from his supporters resulting in acts of hate, from beatings, shootings and burning of mosques.

Nationally, about one-quarter of the nation’s STEM workforce is foreign-born, according to the report. It has grown significantly in recent years, doubling from 11.9 percent in 1990 to 24.3 percent in 2015, according to the AIC, which studies immigration to the United States.

STEM employment varies a great deal by state. For example, in 2015, using the narrow definition, the foreign-born made up more than 40 percent of all STEM workers in New Jersey (43.8 percent) and California (42.4 percent). In 16 other states, the foreign-born make up 20 percent or more of all STEM workers.

When the health and social science occupations are added, foreign-born STEM workers make up slightly smaller shares of the STEM workforce in all but four states. In Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Wyoming, the share of STEM workers that is foreign-born is higher when using the broader definition of STEM occupations, indicating that foreign-born workers are more numerous in health care and education occupations.

In 2015, using the broader definition of STEM, foreign-born workers made up more than 20 percent of the STEM workforce in 12 states. The states with the highest shares of foreign-born in STEM occupations were: California (36.8 percent); New Jersey (35.8 percent); and New York (29.4 percent). Foreign-born STEM workers made up at least 2.8 percent of the STEM workforce in all 50 states.

More than 40 percent of companies in the Fortune 500 in 2010 were founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant employing thousands of U.S.-born workers and spurring employment in related businesses.

One study of workplaces found that adding 100 foreign-born workers in STEM fields with advanced degrees from U.S. universities led to an additional 262 jobs for U.S.-born workers.

The AIC study also found that the nation’s foreign-born STEM workers are more highly educated than their U.S.-born co-workers. Almost half, or 47 percent, of foreign-born STEM workers had five or more years of college, compared to 26 percent of all STEM workers.

As demand grows in these fields, so will the need for an educated workforce. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that STEM occupations will increase about 13 percent from 2012 to 2022, compared to 11 percent projected for all occupations.

“While increasing the number of native-born Americans in STEM fields is critical,” the report concluded, “foreign-born STEM students and workers may still be needed if the United States is to be prepared for future labor needs and excel globally.”

###

Judge upholds injunction vs. Trump punishing 'sanctuary' local governments

IN ANOTHER SETBACK to the Donald Trump administration, a federal judge in California has denied the Department of Justice's request to remove an injunction halting the withholding of federal monies from local governments not assisting the enforcement of immigration policies.

On Thursday (July 20) U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco upheld the injunction preventing any withholding of federal funding to those government entities not cooperating with immigration officers. The judge said the narrower interpretation released by Sessions did not alter the court's initial April decision to impose the block on Trump's executive order.

In ruling against the Trump administration's motion, Orrick said that "that the Counties have standing, that their claims against the Executive Order are ripe, and that they are likely to succeed on the merits of those claims."

Trump issued the order in January directing that funding be slashed to all jurisdictions that refuse to comply with a statute that requires local governments to share information with immigration authorities.

The so-called sanctuary jurisdictions generally do not offer assistance to ICE when the immigration officers conduct their enforcement duties. Dozens of local governments and cities, including San Francisco, Santa Clara County, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing “sanctuary” movement.

RELATED:

• The criminalization of immigrants
• Judge bars reprisal against 'sanctuary' governments

The Trump administration contends that local authorities endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation undocumented immigrants arrested for crimes.

However, research and studies have shown that developing trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities make those communities safer. If local law enforcement is used to enforce immigraiton laws, that trusting relationship would be replaced by distrust, suspicion and fear.

After Trump issued the sanctuary cities executive order earlier this year, Santa Clara County — which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities — sued, saying it was unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

In a ruling in April, Orrick said Trump’s order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

"If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments," Orrick wrote. "The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds."

“Once again, the District Court has sent a message to President Trump that he cannot use the threat of withholding funds to coerce local governments into becoming federal immigration operatives—an unconstitutional effort that puts at risk vital services for millions of people across the country,” said Dave Cortese, President of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. 

Grandparents exempt from travel ban, says Supreme Court

GRANDPARENTS can breathe a bit easier today. The Supreme Court ruled today (July 19) that they are still part of the family.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Hawaiian court's ruling that widened the definition of family members of six Muslim-dominant countries who would still be allowed to enter the U.S.

The order issued Wednesday leaves in place the action of U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Kahala  Watson, who extended the administration's definition of close family to also include categories such as the grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of a person in the U.S.

RELATED: Judge expands 'family' to include grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins

One aspect of Watson's order did not pass muster with the Supreme Court though. People who have a formal relationship or sponsorship with a refugee resettlement are not eligible to enter the U.S. That portion of Watson’s decision is stayed pending an appeal to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

While waiting for the 9th Circuit ruling, 24,000 refugees the government says has been given such assurances will not be able to get into the country. Another 175,000 refugees are in limbo waiting to be connected with a resettlement agency. In effect, Hawaii argues, “many of those refugees…will be unable to demonstrate any other form of bona fide relationship with an American party, meaning that they will be absolutely barred from entering the country in the next several months.”

###

Judge expands travel ban's "family' to include grandparents, aunts and more

Judge Derrick Kahala Watson

THE DEFINITION of family was expanded by a federal judge as it applies to the slimmed down version of a travel ban ordered by Donald Trump.

Grandparents, aunts and uncles and other relatives of people living in the U.S. can no longer be barred from entering the U.S., ruled Judge Derrick Kahala Watson in Hawaii.

It is another blow to Trump's already truncated order that attempts to limit travel from six predominantly Muslim countries.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that he would bring Watson's ruling to the Supreme Court.

When the High Court ruled last month that parts of Trump's travel ban could be implemented, it left the definition of "bona fide" family ties to the administration. Watson said Thursday that the State Department had interpreted the Supreme Court ruling too narrowly.

The State of Hawaii challenged the administration's definition of what was a close relative.

Watson condemned the government's definition of a close relative as "unduly restrictive" especially for Asian families who consider grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins part of the immediate family, not the extended family.

"Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members", he wrote.

In yet another rebuke to the Trump administration, Watson also said that refugees who have “formal assurance” from U.S. resettlement agencies for relocation to the country — even if the refugees do not have relatives in the U.S. — cannot be prevented from entering.

Watson added that a refugee with a commitment from a resettlement agency met the standard for the “bona fide” relationship referred to in the Supreme Court order.

“It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades,” he wrote.

“Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that,” he said.

"By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the Executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the directive of the Supreme Court," Sessions said.

The Supreme Court is not currently in session but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration's application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole.

"The truth here is that the government’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s stay order defies common sense," said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "That’s what the district court correctly found and the attorney general’s misleading attacks on its decision can’t change that fact."

###

15 states join Hawaii in fight to expand exemptions from Trump's travel ban

Hawaii's Attorney General Douglas Chin

HAWAII'S renewed effort to broaden the scope of exceptions to President Donald Trump's executive order on travel got a lot more support when 15 states and the District of Columbia added their voices to the fight. 

The 16 states are urging a federal judge in Honolulu to issue a ruling on Hawaii's claim that the Trump administration wrongly excluded grandparents and other relatives from the list of close family members who can still get visas to travel to the U.S. during the 90 days that the executive order is in force.

"The scope of the travel and refugee bans badly needs to be resolved and not just according to the Trump administration's interpretation," Chin said.

Hakim Ouansafi, president of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, said he respects Watson's ruling but thinks there will be more opportunities to ensure the ban does not exclude grandparents and others close family members.

"We will have people directly affected by this, for sure," Ouansafi said. "When you exclude that many people, the circle is much wider."

Federal appeals court Judge Derrick Kahala Watson dismissed Hawaii's first effort on Friday but indicated a way for the state to try again. 

Watson said it was not his role to interpret a Supreme Court ruling from last month that allowed Trump to proceed with his efforts to suspend visa issuance to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries and to halt refugees from around the globe. While the justices partially revived a policy that lower federal courts had stayed, the high court also gave foreigners with certain kinds of U.S. ties a reprieve from the limits—at least until the justices hear formal arguments on the issue in October.

Lawyers for Hawaii immediately drafted new papers and filed them the next day.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel returned the lawsuit to Watson after saying that the judge does have the authority to rule on the Trump administration's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision.

The State Department said parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children and children-in-law would be exempt from the ban on visas for travel to the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries. Hawaii wants to expand that list to include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and siblings-in-law.

As the government is now enforcing the ban, New York's friend of the court brief said, "an ailing grandmother could not receive end-of-life care from her foreign granddaughter. A niece whose foreign aunt was like a mother to her could not bring that aunt to witness and celebrate her wedding. And an orphaned child would not be permitted to receive a visit from the uncle who took care of her financial and emotional needs after her father's untimely death."

The other states who have sided with Hawaii and New York are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. 

###

Court: Travel ban legality still up in the air; in the meantime, some restrictions will be allowed

The Supreme Court Monday breathed some life into Donald Trumps Muslim ban.

THE SUPREME COURT agreed Monday morning (June 26) to review Donald Trump's controversial executive order restricting travelers and refugees from entering the U.S. 

The court then allowed a watered down Trump's Muslim ban to go into effect by opening the door to the majority of travelers from the six targeted Muslim countries - family members, students, foreign employees, lecturers and business travelers. That includes refugees who are usually sponsored by a church or other human rights organization.

“Almost anyone coming to the U.S. who has a visa or who has been in the refugee program has some kind of tie to a U.S. person,” said Becca Heller, executive director of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

It is far from the "victory" claimed by a White House desperate for a "win" after being stymied by the courts and a Congress immobilized by infighting.  Two federal courts ruled that the Muslim ban was unconstitutional and questioned Trump's authority to order travel restrictions had ordered stays on Trump's executive orders.

"Most of the people who stood to be affected by the ban will still be allowed to come in," said Omar Jadwat of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "So you know, I think it's significant that the court decided to take - to allow only this limited portion of the ban to move forward at this time. And of course, you know, the ultimate question about whether any of this is lawful or constitutional at remains to be decided. And all the court so far that have looked at it have - you know, there's kind of an overwhelming consensus among the courts that this cannot withstand that sort of scrutiny."

The Supreme Court voted unanimously to hear arguments for and against the travel ban during their next term which begins the first Monday of October. Historically, the court issues decisions in the spring. By then, the 90-120 day "pause" that the executive order asked for will be over and the court might just say the question is moot.

Despite the ACLU's assurances, that didn't stop travel ban opponents from expressing their concern.

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court ignores the anti-Muslim bigotry that is at the heart of the travel ban executive orders and will inevitably embolden Islamophobes in the administration to expand efforts to target the Muslim community with unconstitutional and counterproductive policies," said a statement from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). "It also ignores the almost-unanimous rejection of the Muslim ban by lower courts due to its religious intolerance and racial animus."

"The administration’s Muslim ban foments disturbing trends of anti-Muslim sentiments within the U.S. and abroad," agreed the Asian Americans Advancing Justice. "The Supreme Court should not have allowed any part of the Muslim ban to move forward while this executive order is under review.

"The Muslim ban restrains travel and freedom of movement for the communities affected without a rational basis. Any attempt to limit travel based on religion or country of origin is an egregious attack on the Constitution," says the AAAJ.

"From the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II to the Muslim ban today, xenophobia has fanned the flames of fear and hatred, driving immigration policy in irrational ways."

Although disappointed that the court allowed part of the ban to be implemented, Rep. Judy Chu, chair of the Congruessional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said the real important decision will be inte court's next term. 

"The circuit courts, relying on President Trump’s own tweets, public statements during the campaign and the transition, and his conversations with his advisors, have established that the President acted in order to ban followers of the Muslim faith from entering our country," said Chu. "The decision today does not address these facts, but I am confident that when the Court reviews the merits of the challenge against the Muslim ban it will find that it violates both the spirit and the letter of our Constitution.”

The court's decision on the partial implementation won't be implemented until Thursday when demonstrations might occur at the airports as they did when the first travel ban was announced. 

"Reinstating any part of this ban could create chaos in the nation’s airports and tear families apart,” Margaret Huang, Amnesty International’s executive director, said in a statement.

"The religious intolerance and racial discrimination that the administration continues to unabashedly display in its rhetoric and policy is not only disgusting but is a direct attack on our nation’s core values,” said Johanna Puno Hester, APALA National President and Assistant Executive Director of the United Domestic Workers, AFSCME Local 3930, 

The ruling negated any thought that Justice Neil Gorsuch, might moderate his views once he took his seat on the Supreme Court. He joined the right wing cohort of justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who thought the entire ban should be put into effect.

“With Gorsuch rounding out the Supreme Court, these rulings will have a tremendous, far-reaching impact on millions of people both nationwide and abroad,” said Alvina Yeh, executive director of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance.  “That’s why our fight for immigrant and refugee communities continues despite whatever decision the Supreme Court rules in the fall. Our fight goes beyond holding elected officials accountable; it extends to protecting the very people in our families, friends, and communities from hate and discrimination.”

Another setback for Trump's Muslim ban; AAPI leaders react

IN YET another setback for the Trump administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that his "travel ban" was unconstitutional and upheld the stay on its implementation.

Hawaii's Attorney General Doug Chin flashes a "hang loose" sign after the courts ruled against
the second Presidential executive order instituting a travel ban.

The trio of Ninth Circuit Judges -- Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez — used narrow grounds to reject the Trump administration's bid to undo a  ruling of Derrick Kahala Watson of Hawaii's 3rd District Court blocking the temporary ban. It said the Republican president's March 6 order violated existing immigration law. 

Trump's Executive Order 2.0 did not tie citizens of the targeted countries -- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- to terrorist organizations or contributors to “active conflict,” the court said. It also did not provide any link between their nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism.

“In short, the order does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” the panel said.

Because of the conflict with immigration law, the judges said they didn’t need to consider whether it also violated the Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any religion. The 4th Circuit found the policy unconstitutional on that basis.

Hawaii's Sen.Mazie K. Hirono, an immigrant and an outspoken opponent of the administration’s immigration policies, said, “Court after court has seen this Muslim Ban for what it is: an illegal attack on a group of individuals singled out for their religion. Today is a victory not only for Hawaii, but for our shared American values. The decision is a welcome reminder that the federal courts serve an invaluable function in our system of checks and balances.”

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin released the following statement after the ruling: “I stated from the beginning that the President must act in a way that follows the laws and Constitution of the United States. Our system of checks and balances, enshrined in the Constitution."

Fellow Democrat U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz said, “The Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold (U.S. District )Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling against President Trump’s Muslim ban is another win for the rule of law. The courts continue to affirm what we already know: the Muslim ban is un-American, unconstitutional, and contrary to everything we stand for.”

The 9th Circuit also kept blocking Trump’s suspension of the U.S. refugee program. The court said he was required to consult with Congress in setting the number of refugees allowed into the country in a given year and that he could not decrease it midyear.

The refugee program was not at issue in when the 4th Circuit also ruled against the executive order, the second attempt to implemtn a travel bay by the Trump administration.

"Another victory for American values. 9th Circuit confirms what we already know—the Pres' “travel ban” is really a discriminatory #MuslimBan," said Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth.

“Asian Pacific Americans have historically been targeted by exclusionary laws, giving us first-hand perspectives on the harms this order inflicts upon Muslim and immigrant communities. NAPABA’s community has stepped up to strongly oppose this attack on core American rights and values,” said Cyndie M. Chang, president of National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

"From the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese American incarceration to the Muslim Ban today, xenophobia has driven national policy in ways that fan the flames of irrational fear and hatred," said the Asian Americans Advancing Justice in a statement responding to the court decision. "The court’s decision today affirms America can and must do better than this."

The suits by Hawaii and the Maryland challengers argued that the executive order violated federal immigration law and a section of the Constitution's First Amendment that prohibits the government from flavoring or disfavoring any particular region.lly correct" version of his original one.

Attorneys for the state of Hawaii, who argued before the 9th Circuit, also filed with the Supreme Court on Monday a response to Donald Trump's asking the high court to hear the travel ban litigation and lift the blockades of the ban. The attorneys argued that lifting the blockade of the ban would spark "chaos and confusion," and also cited the president's most recent tweets championing the original travel ban.

Attorneys for the state of Hawaii, who argued before the 9th Circuit, also filed with the Supreme Court on Monday a response to Donald Trump's asking the high court to hear the travel ban litigation and lift the blockades of the ban. The attorneys argued that lifting the blockade of the ban would spark "chaos and confusion," and also cited the president's most recent tweets championing the original travel ban. 

The 9th Circuit's ruling also noted Trump's June 5 tweets calling the executive orders a "travel ban." Trump described the order as a "watered down, politically correct" version of his original order.

###

Chief Justice: 'We are living in a time of ... unprecdented polarization'

SCREEN CAPTURE

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sskauve being interviewed by KQED-TV.

SHE'S A REPUBLICAN, but California's Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, is not hesitating to strongly criticize Donald Trump's immigration policies. 

In her State of the Judiciary address Monday (March 24), the Filipina/American justice said that the rule of law was being "challenged" amid the administration's immigration crackdown.

The address followed a letter that she sent earlier this month criticizing federal immigraiton authories for using courthouses as "bait" to arrest undcocumented  immigrants. A few days later, she criticized Trump's comments about federal judges who ruled against his poorly written executive orders on travel restrictions from six predominantly Muslim countries.

In a departure from her usual State of the Judiciary addresses that she usually uses to outline the budget needs of the state's judicial system, Justice Cantil-Sakauye  told the state’s lawmakers that “the rule of law means that we as a people are governed by laws and rules, and not by a monarch.”

RELATED:

• Undocumented being arrested in the courts
• Judge who ruled against Muslim ban beting threatened

“We are living in a time of civil rights unrest, eroding public trust in our institutions, economic anxiety, and unprecedented polarization,” she said. “Our values, our rules and our laws are being called into question, and all three branches of government and the free press are in the crosshairs.”

In an interview for KQED, she recalls the tipping point for her was an incident in Pasadena, CA. where ICE agents arrested an attorney's clients on the steps of the courthouse. "Courthouses are where we encourage to come for due process as witnesses, as victims, and that would have a chilling effect." People will no longer report, crime will go unreported in the community and they won't come to the court as bad guys, she said.

During her address to a joint session of the California Legislature, the chief justice, whose parents worked as agricultural workers in Hawaii, recalled her husband’s parents who were held at U.S. internment camps for Japanese/Americans for four years during World War II.

###

Hawaiian judge extends stay vs. Trump travel ban

FILE PHOTO

U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson

HAWAIIAN federal judge, U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson, took only a few hours late Wednesday to extend his order blocking  Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban.

The state of Hawaii argued successfully that  the policy discriminates against Muslims and hurts the state’s tourist-dependent economy. The implied message in the revised ban is like a “neon sign flashing ‘Muslim ban, Muslim ban’” that the government didn’t bother to turn off, state Attorney General Douglas Chin told the judge.

Extending the temporary order until the state’s lawsuit was resolved would ensure the constitutional rights of Muslim citizens across the U.S. are vindicated after “repeated stops and starts of the last two months,” the state has said.

RELATED: Judge Watson receiving threats for his ruling against Muslim ban

The Department of Justice argued the ban falls within the president’s power to protect national security. Hawaii has only made generalized concerns about its effect on students and tourism, DOJ attorney Chad Readler told the Honolulu-based judge via telephone.

The Trump administration had asked Watson to narrow his ruling to cover only the part of Trump’s executive order that suspends new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries. Readler said a freeze on the U.S. refugee program had no effect on Hawaii.

Judge Watson had blocked the core provision of the revised executive order two weeks ago, stating that the order violates Establishment Clause of the Constitution by disfavoring Muslims.

"The court concludes that, on the record before it, plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim," Watson wrote in his order extending the original temporary restraining order.

Watson, while putting an indefinite stay on the travel ban, argued that Trump's statements about Muslims and vow to institute a ban on Muslims during his presidential campaign speak to the intent of the travel ban.

After the original travel ban was stayed by a Florida federal judge, the Trump administration had issued a revised travel ban on March 6, in an attempt to overcome the legal problems with the first one.

Trump's original travel ban restricted people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Soon after trump signed the ban in February, it caused a worldwide outrage, with many people taking to airports across America to protest the order, which was deemed anti-Muslim. 

Trump has promised to take both challenged travel bans to the U.S. Supreme Court.

###

The Atlantic: Muslim aide says why she left the Trump White House

Ruman Ahmed

IN 2011 Ruman Ahmed got a job of a lifetime. Straight out of college, she joined the Obama administration. "My job there was to promote and protect the best of what my country stands for," she writes in a piece in The Atlantic. "I am a hijab-wearing Muslim woman -- I was the hijabi in the West Wing -- and the Obama administration always made me feel welcome and included."

The 2015-2016 presidential campaign changed the climate of the country, says Ahmed, the daughter of immigrants from Bangladesh. She felt the Muslim/American community was under attack.

As Obama left and Trump's people began moving into the White House, since she wasn't a presidential appointee, Ahmed felt her job with the National Security Council wasn't in jeopardy. She thought she could work with the incoming administration, as her peers had done with previous administrations, regardless of party affiliation.

She lasted eight days. When the President signed the executive order banning and restricting travel from seven Muslim-dominated countries and stopped accepting refugees, she felt she had to leave.

She told her boss, Michael Anton, who came in with Trump, why she was leaving: 

"I told him I had to leave because it was an insult walking into this country’s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim. I told him that the administration was attacking the basic tenets of democracy. I told him that I hoped that they and those in Congress were prepared to take responsibility for all the consequences that would attend their decisions.:

Anton looked at her and said nothing.

It turns out that Anton wrote an article under a pseudonym on behalf of the Trump campaign that was widely disseminated among conservative websites. In the article he wrote that Islam is an inherently violent religion that is “incompatible with the modern West,” defended the World War II-era America First Committee, which included anti-Semites, as “unfairly maligned,” and called diversity “a source of weakness, tension and disunion.”

The article is also interesting because it gives us a glimpse of how the Trump White House was operating in an environment of chaos. The Monday after the inauguration, "I walked into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with the new staffers there. Rather than the excitement I encountered when I first came to the White House under Obama, the new staff looked at me with a cold surprise. The diverse White House I had worked in became a monochromatic and male bastion."

"This was not typical Republican leadership, or even that of a businessman. It was a chaotic attempt at authoritarianism," Ahmed writes.

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO/ PETE SOUZA

Ruman Ahmed was part of the National Security staff that advised President Obama.

I wonder how many government employees are facing the same dilemma that confronted Ahmed and how many are arriving at the same conclusion.

Certainly, the underreported "revolt" within the government runs deep. Some workers have chosen to go underground and work from within the government. With alternative websites springing up set up by disgruntled government employees who have been told to stop using social media to share information about climate change, scientific and medical research and breakthroughs, I suspect the feeling of distrust against Trump and his political appointees runs deeper than we think.

Ahmed's resignation is only the tip of the iceberg.

America is far from perfect. There is much that still needs to be done, to fight for -- but we have to admit, the country has made mighty strides in the past 60-70 years during which we learned to take care of our elderly, ensured that retirees are not living in poverty and that all people have access to affordable health care. However, as the Trump administration begins to flex its muscle - the Muslim ban is only the start and The Wall has taken on metaphorical status - and we see the progress we've made in civil rights, equality and opportunities being attacked or undermined, we all need to ask ourselves the questions: Where do I stand? What can I do to express my outrage; to change things; to make a positive difference?

As Ahmed concludes in her article:

"Placing U.S. national security in the hands of people who think America’s diversity is a 'weakness' is dangerous. It is false.

"People of every religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and age pouring into the streets and airports to defend the rights of their fellow Americans over the past few weeks proved the opposite is true –– American diversity is a strength, and so is the American commitment to ideals of justice and equality."

Read the entire article here.

###

1.65 million, or 1 in 7 Asian/Americans are undocumented

WHILE MOST of the media reports about Donald Trump's pending plans to deport undocumented immigrants, most of the attention has been on those people who entered the U.S. over its southern border.

Little focus has been on immigrants from Asia, the largest source of immigrants in recent years, surpassing the number of immigrants coming from Latin American countries.

The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) and and the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) have published estimates of the Asian undocumented population in the United States for 2014. The total number of Asian undocumented ranges from the Institute's1.46 million to the Center's 1.65 million. The blog putting those numbers together was written by Karthick Ramakrishnan and Sono Shah for AAPI Data and released last week.

According to those agencies, Asian undocumented immigrants account for about 14 percent of the total undocumented population in the United States. Another way to look at it is about 1 out of every 7 Asian immigrants is undocumented. 

It's important to note that the figures cited by CMS and MPI are from 2014 data. In the closing years of the Obama administration, the disparity between unauthorized immigration from Asia and Latin America grew even wider. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the number of undocumented people has grown beyond the numbers shown in the accompanying graph.

RELATED: Trump's plans for deporting undocumented immigrants

The figures released by AAPI Data are significantly higher than earlier estimates of 900,000 undocumented Asians.

In most states, Asians make up relatively small portions of their total undocumented population. Estimates show Hawaii, Alaska and New Hampshire as the only states which Asians make up more than 40 percent of the state undocumented population.

The percentage of California's undocumented population is only. 12.75 percent but the state has most undocumented Asian immigrants with 385,000.

CENTER FOR MIGRATION STUDIES, 2014

The U.S. undocumented population has fallen below 11 million for the first time since 2004, according to a CMS report released last month. The report says the total U.S. undocumented population continued to decline in 2014, and has fallen by more than a million since 2008;

“Despite the claims of an ever-rising, out-of-control US undocumented population,” said Donald Kerwin, CMS’s Executive Director, “the number of undocumented has fallen each year since 2008. In addition, the number and percentage of foreign-born persons with legal status has increased. These trends should be applauded by partisans on all sides of the immigration debate.”

###