Federal judge upholds California's sanctuary laws

ASIAN IMMIGRANT WOMEN ADVOCATES

Some of the largest protests against Donald Trump's immigration policies have taken place in California.

I CAN ALMOST HEAR Attorney General Jeff Sessions cursing in his southern drawl after a federal judge ruled in favor of the bulk of California's sanctuary laws aimed at countering Donald Trump's crackdown against undocumented immigrants.

US District Judge John Mendez rejected today (June 5) the Department of Justice's attempt to overrule a California law that limits immigration-related information state and local law enforcement can share with federal officials and how much those agencies can assist Immigration and Custom Enforcement efforts.

The Sacramento-based judge also declined the DOJ's request to block another law guaranteeing California officials certain information about local and privately run jails that hold immigration detainees.

Mendez also partially upheld the third law, AB 450, which regulates interactions between private employers and federal authorities. He ruled that the state could require employers to notify employees about upcoming workplace inspections, but he sided with the Feds in rejecting the part of the law that barred employers from voluntarily cooperating with immigration officials and from reverifying the legal work status of employees.

"The Constitution gives the people of California, not the Trump Administration, the power to decide how we will provide for our public safety and general welfare. California’s laws work in concert—not conflict—with federal law," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement. He called Mendez's opinion "a strong ruling against federal overreach."

The California case was the DOJ's most direct challenge to date against California that has opposed the aggressive ICE actions against undocumented immigrants. The state is home to t he most undocumented immigrants in the country.

Mendez added that making law through the courts is not an effective way to create legislation. He urged Congress to get over their partisanship and develop new immigration laws.  “Our Nation deserves it,” he wrote. “Our Constitution demands it.”

Gov. Jerry Brown stated, “I agree with Judge Mendez that piecemeal judicial decisions won’t solve the nation’s immigration challenges. Only Congress can chart the path forward by rising above mindless, partisan divisions and working together to solve this problem, not exacerbate it.”

________________________________________________________________________________

A divided Supreme Court upholds Trump's Muslim travel ban

The Supreme Court ruling on the Trump Muslim ban drew protests.

ASAM NEWS &
Views From the Edge

THE SUPREME COURT this morning (June 26) in a split 5-4 decision ruled President Trump’s travel ban against Muslims is constitutional.

This is the White House’s third attempt at a travel ban and the only one to be upheld.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the ban fell “squarely” within the president’s authority, reports CNBC It rejected claims the ban was based on religious bigotry or hostility.

Roberts concluded the White House showed a “sufficient national security justification,” but added “We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” according to Reuters.

Under the executive order, immigrants, refugees, and visa holders from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen are banned from entering the US.

The vote among the nine justices was along party lines, Roberts was joined by conservative Justices Sanuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Anthony Kennedy.

RELATED: SCOTUS repudiates infamous Korematsu ruling

In desent were the liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

In her scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “A reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was driven primarily by anti-Muslim animus, rather than by the Government’s asserted national-security justifications. Even before being sworn into office, then-candidate Trump stated that ‘Islam hates us.’”

The majority did not take into consideration Donald Trump's numerous anti-Muslim statements during his campaign and which he continues to make since he has taken office.

The conservative justices basically ruled that the Chief Executive has the authority to limit immigration without making a judgement on the "soundness of the policy."

"Today's ruling sits alongside other similarly shameful Supreme Court decisions allowing Japanese American internment and segregation,” said Lena Masri, National Litigation Director for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

"The Muslim community will join other advocates of civil rights to show the ban for what it is -- an illegal expression of anti-Muslim animosity," said CAIR Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas.

In a statement in reaction to today’s ruling, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

“This is a setback; not the end of the road. Today, the Supreme Court made it clear that the responsibility will continue to be on the American Muslim community and its allies to push for an end to the Muslim Ban.

“The Supreme Court's decision is an invitation to inject discrimination back into our immigration system. More than half a century ago, Congress abandoned a racist immigration system that preferred some races over others. This decision is an abandonment of that milestone.

“The Muslim Ban's bigotry should have been as clear to the Supreme Court as it is to the Muslims demonized by it. Apparently, everyone but the Supreme Court can see the decision for what it is: an expression of animosity.”

“This juncture in U.S. history is an ideological juncture–and it is one that has to contend with the histories of oppression that have marginalized and disenfranchised our communities for decades,” said Suman Raghunathan, Executive Director of South Asian Americans Leading Together, said to AsAmNews.

“We at SAALT choose and have always chosen, to build a nation where families are not torn apart, where children are not detained in cages, where differences are not criminalized for partisan gain. Today as hate separates families and places our communities at the cross hairs of hate, we vow to continue the fight for justice, dignity and full inclusion.”

“In affirming President Trump’s bigoted Muslim Ban, the Supreme Court has given a green light to religious discrimination and animus,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates. “Not since key decisions on slavery, segregation in schools, and Japanese American incarceration, have we seen a decision that so clearly fails to protect those most vulnerable to government-led discrimination.

Since the Muslim Ban was allowed to go into effect late last year, the administration has separated families and loved ones; and denied people opportunities to work, travel, study, seek medical care, and better our nation, simply because of what they believe and where they come from. This decision puts the basic rights of all Americans at risk.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-WA, released the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling to allow some provisions of the Muslim Ban to go into effect:

“The Supreme Court has failed to consider the anti-American, discriminatory nature of President Trump’s Muslim Ban – an executive order that remains, in my view, unconstitutional and deeply antithetical to our country’s moral values,” said Jayapal. “Major courts across the country have already rejected the Muslim Ban, recognizing it as a threat to constitutional protections. In allowing parts of the ban to take hold before considering the case, the Supreme Court has done a grave disservice to core American values.

“Today’s ruling will have consequences that stretch far and wide: undermining our national security and hurting our economy by restricting tourists, who may have no relationships here, from entering the country," said Jayapal.

“Let me be clear – this decision is not a victory for President Trump,” Jayapal added. “The Supreme Court has not given him the green light to unilaterally ban travelers to the United States. In fact, the court makes it clear that Trump cannot restrict many immigrants from seeking a better life in the U.S.”The American Civil Liberties Union strongly condemned today's ruling, responding on Twitter that "this is not the first time the Court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it."

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement that the court's "ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's great failures."

Lt. Gov. Doug Chin

 "Today is a dark day for our country," said Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-HI, She claimed the Supreme Court "handed the president unfettered power to continue to target minorities."

Hirono asked, "Is the president going to say that it's our national security to ban people from Canada? To ban people from Guatemala? From Honduras? Who's next?"

Lt. Gov. Doug Chin, who led Hawaii’s challenge against the travel ban when he served as attorney general, issued a statement to the Honolulu Star Advertiser saying, “I hurt today for Hawaii families and others who have experienced discrimination and scapegoating due to President Trump's bullying remarks and orders.”
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-CA, tweeted, "This decision from the Supreme Court upholds a policy that is an affront to our values. Trump's Muslim Ban is discriminatory and betrays our country’s history as a nation of immigrants."
“Today, our current vetting system is capable and successful at weeding out threats, which is why immigrants and refugees from these countries have not been terrorists or criminals, but instead have settled peacefully and are contributing to our communities," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA, who is chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. "Many of them fled war and violence only to find opportunity and peace here. That’s how our laws should work. But now, the Supreme Court has given license to Trump to continue labeling all Muslims as threats, denying them a chance at a better life, and encouraging xenophobia and isolating communities.

"We should not repeat racist and discriminatory policies based on national origin that are hauntingly similar to the treatment of the Asian American community at instructive times in our national history," said a statement from AAAJ. "From the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the unjust and inhumane incarceration of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, our country has an unfortunate history of prejudicial laws that threaten this nation's founding ideals."

Supreme Court rejects Trump attempt to circumvent court process over DACA

THIS IS A GOOD MORNING! The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning (Feb. 26) that DACA will remain in effect. Donald Trump's arbitrary deadline of March 5 is thus null and void.

Time to celebrate? Yes! But then it is back to work. The fight over the legality of the Obama-era Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program isn't over.

The High Court turned down an attempt by the Trump administration to skip over the appeals process and go directly to the Justices to keep the March 5 deadline in effect.

By rejecting that effort, the case goes back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where the legal process could take up months before a verdict is rendered. It could be year before  the Department of Justice can reappeal to the Supreme Court, where the conservative justices still hold the majority.

Massachusetts Attorney General Erick Schneiderman issued this Tweet:

In the meantime, the 700,000 to 800,000 DACA participants, young people who were brought into the U.S. by their undocumented parents, can breathe a sigh of relief. The month of March won't be the end of their world, after all.

The vast majority of DACA recipients are from Mexico. But there are also thousands of people from China, India, South Korea and the Philippines who would lose their protection and may be deported.

The SCOTUS ruling allows Dreamers to continue to renew their DACA status but new applications are still not being accepted.

Trump's administration had taken the unusual step of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court a January 9 nationwide injunction by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who ruled that the DACA program must remain in place while the litigation is resolved.

Alsup ruled that the challengers, including the states of California, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota and Obama's former homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano, were likely to succeed in arguing that the administration's decision to end DACA was arbitrary.

In issuing his temporary order, which extends the DACA protection while the lawsuit goes forward, Alsup said the "public interest" would be served by keeping the program in place. The judge pointed to Trump tweets that suggested he actually supported DACA. A September tweet read: "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really! ... ."

Alsup wrote: "We seem to be in the unusual position wherein the ultimate authority over the agency, the chief executive, publicly favors the very program the agency has ended."

On February 13, a second US judge issued a similar injunction ordering the Trump administration to keep DACA in place. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn ruled in a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs including a group of states led by New York.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah issued the following statement after the Supreme Court’s decision:

The DACA program — which provides work permits and myriad government benefits to illegal immigrants en masse — is clearly unlawful. The district judge’s decision unilaterally to re-impose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority. The fact that this occurs at a time when elected representatives in Congress are actively debating this policy only underscores that the district judge has unwisely intervened in the legislative process. We look forward to having this case expeditiously heard by the appeals court and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, where we fully expect to prevail.

The SCOTUS action leaves open the possibility that the justices could consider the San Francisco case after the 9th Circuit appeals court hears it.

Trump repealed Obama's executive order creating the DACA program last September hoping that Congress would find a legislative solution to the Dreamers situation and gave the U.S. Senate until March 5 to fix it.

Congress was unable to find a bipartisan solution and found itself mired in the broader question of immigration reform. They left the DACA question unresolved by rejecting two bipartisan proposals, a conservative counterproposal and Trump's own immigration reform plan before they recessed for a week. They return this week to renew the debate.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan told reporters earlier this month that the March 5 deadline was “not as important as it was before, given the court rulings.” However, he said, “I think this place works better with deadlines, and we want to operate on deadlines.”

________________________________________________________________________________