Gallup Poll: Race relations, Immigration are among America's top concerns

Immigrants becoming Americans.

UPDATED June 3 to correct misleading headline.

On the cusp of the celebration of July 4th, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, more Americans believe immigration is beneficial to the United States.

The overwhelming majority of Americans, 77%, believe immigration is a good thing for their country. When measured in this more general sense, public support for immigration is at historic highs, showing far less of a partisan divide, with both Republicans and Democrats expressing a more generally positive view of immigration.

Thirty-four percent of Americans, up from 27% a year ago, would prefer to see immigration to the U.S. increased. This is the highest level of support for expanding immigration Gallup has found in its trend since 1965, when the historic Immigration Reform Act was passed.

At the same time, the percentage favoring less immigration has fallen to a new low of 28%, while 36% think it should stay at the present level.

This marks the first time in Gallup's trend that the percentage wanting increased immigration has exceeded the percentage who want decreased immigration.

Two years ago, Americans cited immigration as the most important problem facing the country. Recent events, such as the killing of George Floyd has pushed race relations, as the most important problem facing the country.

Not included in the survey, was the importance of overcoming the coronavirus, which could push immigration to the third spot overall.

Controlling -- or limiting -- Immigration was the centerpiece of Donald Trump's rise to the presidency starting with building a wall on the US border with Mexico, the ban on travel from countries predominantly Muslim, and more recent attempts -- piece by piece -- of undoing the 1965 immigration act that opened the process in a more equitable fashion to countries other than those from Europe.

While Trump may be right to make immigration his campaign's central issue, the poll suggests that he may be on the wrong side of the issue. But Trump may not be as concerned with getting majority support for his policies as he is in using the issue to energize his politically right-of-center base.

Trump's policies and rhetoric on immigration appear to be accomplishing that goal but may also be serving to make people outside his base more positive toward immigration.

These results are from a Gallup poll conducted May 28-June 4 before the Trump administration's decision to halt issuing any new H-1B and other worker visas through the end of the year. It also preceded the Supreme Court's recent ruling that invalidated the Trump administration's action to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act, which offers legal protection for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

Contrary to most Americans' perception, according to the Pew Research Center, the majority of new immigrants in recent years are coming from Asia, not Latin America and Mexico. The countries providing the most immigrants -- before Trump's new limits -- are coming from India, China, Pakistan and the Philippines.

Asian Americans denounce expansion of the Muslim ban

SAALT

ASAM NEWS

Both South Asian American and Japanese American groups are condemning Donald Trump’s decision Jan. 31 to expand his Muslim travel ban to six more countries.

“Like each previous version of the Muslim ban, this new ban is rooted in the Trump administration’s bigotry and xenophobia, including the president’s well-known belief that Black immigrants come from “sh*thole countries,” said Mike Ishii, Co-Director of Tsuru for Solidarity, a group of Japanese Americans dedicated to ending detention of refugees and immigrants at detention centers.

The ban now includes Myanmar, Nigeria, Kyrgyzstan, Eritrea, Sudan and Tanzania.

“One thing is clear, the Muslim Ban was this administration’s first family separation policy just days after the presidential inauguration in 2017, and it has served as the foundational policy for targeting communities of color ever since,” said Lakshmi Sridaran, South Asian Americans Leading Together’s Interim Executive Director. “Since then, we have seen attacks on DACA, TPS, diversity lottery, green cards, public benefits, refugees, asylum seekers, pregnant women, and more to institutionalize a white supremacist agenda.”

The issue is one close to the heart of many Japanese Americans.

“We recognize this kind of bigotry; it is what politicians used during World War II to justify rounding up our families and throwing us into American concentration camps,” Ishii explained.

It is apparent that in including Myanmar, formerly Burma, the Trump administration is targeting the Rohingya Muslims fleeing government-approved persecution.

“For decades, the minority Rohingya Muslims of Burma have been exposed to human rights violations. Now, those who reside in the United States are living in fear of being seperateded from their family due to Trump’s expansion of the Muslim ban. Anything that tears apart our families threatens our nation," said Henny Ohr, executive director at Ethnic Minorities of Burma Advocacy and Resource Center in Iowa in a statement.

"That’s why today, immigrant families in Iowa and throughout our nation affirm our belief that having family values means keeping families together no matter their creed or where they were born.” 

SAALT is calling for the passage of the No Ban Act. The Act calls for the immediately rescission of the Muslim Ban and would limit the president’s power to exercise such authority.

"From scapegoating Muslims with the Muslim Ban to now expanding the same restrictions to other immigrant communities of color, the Trump administration continues to weaponize immigration law in order to advance its xenophobic agenda," said Javeria Jamil, a lawyer at the National Security & Civil Rights of Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus.

'Trump’s extended un-American travel ban undermines our nation’s core values. It is clearly driven by hate, not security," tweeted California Sen. Kamala Harris.

Views From the Edge contributed to this report.

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."

ACLU' wants to know how people are 'living with the Muslim ban'

DO YOU have a story on how Donald Trump's Muslim Ban has affected your life or your family? The ACLU wants to hear from you.

 On April 25, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to Donald Trump’s Muslim ban, which has been in effect since December. As a result, the United States currently bans nationals of five Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen — and a minuscule number of North Koreans and Venezuelans from coming to the country on most or all types of visas, even if they have spouses, children, parents, or other family members in the United States.

The ACLU invited people to share how the ban affects their lives. Stories poured in from the United States and abroad; of families separated, weddings postponed, and lives uprooted. 

Communities across the country are grappling with what it means to be Muslim in the United States, living under a president who says that “Islam hates us,” and has spun that prejudice into actual policy.

Their stories illustrate how profoundly the ban has already changed their lives — and what’s at stake at the Supreme Court. Click here to read and hear their stories or if you want to tell your own story.

Supreme Court allows Trump Muslim ban implementation; appeals court to hear challenges

NAPAWF

Donald Trump's Muslim bans sparked protests. Above, members of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum marched in front of the Fourth District Court in Maryland.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court is allowing Donald Trump's controversial Muslim ban to go into effect.

The third version of the controversial travel ban prohibits people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. 

However, the temporary victory for Trump was not an endorsement of the proposed travel restrictions, notes the ACLU. The court ruling merely stayed the lower court orders that prevented the executive order from being implemented while the lawsuits against the travel ban make their way through the lower courts.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, had this reaction:

"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret — he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down."

Seven of the justices ruled in favor of the administration while two — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — said the partial stay on the ban should continue.

The court did not give a reason for its decision. However, the travel ban could still be found unconstitutional as the lawsuits against the ban make their way to the Supreme Court.

Two appeals courts, the 9th and 4th circuits, are scheduled to hear arguments this week in separate cases that were filed in Hawaii and Maryland challenging the travel ban.

Among the issues raised by challengers was whether the travel ban discriminated against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring a particular religion. The same arguments are being used against the new ban.

The travel ban — the third one Trump has issued — bars most travelers from eight countries — Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Six are Muslim-majority nations.

Two Asian/American judges, Theodore Chuang of  Maryland and Derrick Watson of Hawaii had blocked the third version of the travel ban from being enforced.

RELATED:

• Court stymies implementation of Trump travel ban
• Second U.S. district court denies Trump travel ban

The Supreme Court's decision Monday essentially throws out a compromise that exempted foreign nationals who have credible claims of a bona fide relationship with someone in the United States, including grandparents, brothers- and sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles and cousins.

"This decision ignores the very real human consequences to American citizens and their families abroad imposed by President Trump's Muslim Ban 3.0," said Lena Masri, national director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Supreme court hears argument for relief for prolonged detention of immigrants

Demonstrators in front of the Supreme Court.

WHILE most of the attention of the news media centered on the Muslim ban being proposed by the Trump administration, another court case was heard earlier this month by the Supreme Court that affects the rights of detained immigrants.

The case, Jennings v. Rodriguez, challenges the government’s practice of detaining immigrants facing deportation proceedings for months or years without due process, including many long-term green-card holders and asylum seekers.

Ahilan Arulanantham, the son of  immigrants from Sri Lanka, will argued the case on behalf of the ACLU this Oct. 3, the traditional first day of the SCOTUS session.

This case challenges the government’s practice of detaining immigrants facing deportation proceedings for months or years without due process, including many long-term green-card holders and asylum seekers.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the government must provide individualized bond hearings to assess danger and flight risk when detention exceeds six months, and every six months thereafter. The decision agreed with the ACLU, which represents plaintiffs.

Prolonged detention of such immigrants is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, at a daily cost of $164 per detainee per day, and more than $2 billion a year. In America, no one should be locked up for months or years without a hearing to determine if their detention is even justified.

Ahilan Anulanantham

"The Rodriguez rule was actually an incredibly modest rule," Arulanantham explained. "It just says that if after six months your immigration case is still ongoing, you should get to ask a judge for the opportunity to be released."

The example of Ahilan Nadarajah is telling.

Repeatedly tortured as a member of an ethnic minority in his homeland Sri Lanka, he sought asylum in the United States in 2001.

The authorities detained him, and he remained behind bars for four years and five months as one release request after another was rejected. He eventually received American citizenship.

"What matters about this case is that you ve got people who are fighting their deportation, who are being locked up without bond hearings," Judy Rabinovitz, a member of the ACLU legal team, told AFP.

"Many of them have strong challenges to removal and if they had a bond hearing they wouldn t be found to be a danger of flight risk."

Then there's the story of Mark Hwang, a lawful permanent resident who was detained and separated from his twin daughters just after their birth:

Hwang has been a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. for nearly 30 years, having immigrated to the U.S. from South Korea at the age of nine. 

In 2013, upon returning home from the hospital with his prematurely born newborn twin daughters, Hwang was arrested by immigration officials in a home raid. He now faced both deportation and mandatory detention for a marijuana conviction he received 15 years prior to the immigration detention. Shackled and transported to Adelanto Detention Facility, Hwang was forced to leave his wife Sarah, a U.S. citizen, alone to care for their newborns and two-year-old son and to run their small business.

Detention was emotionally devastating for Hwang. He was unable to see his family for long periods. Even when they visited, he was not permitted to hold his children. He tried to have his marijuana conviction vacated, but was unable to appear at any criminal court hearings due to his detention.

Finally, after six months of detention, in July 2013 Hwang was given a Rodriguez hearing and ordered released on a $9,000 bond. Hwang later had his marijuana conviction vacated, and his removal proceedings were subsequently terminated in August 2014, restoring his lawful permanent resident status.

With cases averaging a reported 13 months, and conditions in detention centers facing criticism, the authorities have been under pressure to find a solution.

"Someone has to look at the detention and decide, is this a detention which remains reasonable?" said Arulanantham.

_______________________________________________________________________________

  

Courts ruling against racist laws: Texas voters' ID law, Arizona ban Vs. Mexican American Studies

TWO RULINGS by federal judges threw out two proposed laws critics said were racist and supported by conservative groups. 

A voter ID law discriminated against minorities and an attempt to ban Mexican American studies in public schools were both turned down by district judges.

An attempt to impose a voter I.D. law in Texas was turned down by U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the Southern District of Texas. She said changes to the law passed earlier this year by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature that were meant to be less discriminatory than an earlier one did not accomplish that.

Ramos said the state did not allow enough types of photo IDs for voters, “even though the (5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) was clearly critical of Texas having the most restrictive list in the country.”

Ramos' ruling will likely be appealed.

The Trump administration supported the ruling after he campaigned on cutting voter fraud, picking up a theme of fellow Republicans across the country. Critics have said the Texas law and similar statutes enacted in other Republican-controlled states are an effort to suppress voting, especially among African/Americans and Latinos who tend to favor Democrats.

Trump has made unsubstantiated allegations that millions of people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton in last November’s election, in which Clinton won the popular vote but lost the decisive Electoral College count.

"Jim Crow-era tactics have kept Texas Republicans in power,” said Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa. “From discriminatory gerrymandering to discriminatory voter ID laws, it has become entirely clear that Texas Republicans are rigging our election system.”

Ethnic studies ban illegal

Arizona's ban on ethnic studies courses aimed at Latino students, saying it was motivated by racial discrimination and violated pupils’ constitutional rights.

The decision by Judge A. Wallace Tashima issued on Tuesday (Aug. 22) came in response to a lawsuit by students and parents challenging the law, which ended a Mexican American Studies, or MAS, program run by the Tucson school district.

“The Court is convinced that decisions regarding the MAS program were motivated by a desire to advance a political agenda by capitalizing on race-based fears,” ruled Tashima.

About 64 percent of Arizona’s school students are Hispanic, according to state figures. The MAS program included units on Mexican American history, art and literature.

In three separate rulings earlier this year, Federal judges ruled against Trump's attempt to implement a Muslim ban on people from six predominantly Muslim countries. While the Supreme Court allowed parts of Trump's ban, the final version was severely limited in its implementation. Other controversial elements are still being challenged and the Supreme Court will hear arguments sometime after it convenes in October.

The lower court system is the one branch of government that is not yet dominated by the radical conservative ideology that has taken over the Republican party. At the federal level and certain other states like Texas, the GOP controls the legislative and executive branches.

The courts abide by the rule of law - at this time - which makes it even more important that Trump's administration is stymied as much possible to prevent him from nominating more activist judges who render judgements based on their personal and religious views rather than the Constitution. If allowed to go unchallenged, a Trump-appointed judicial system could change the perspective of the law for decades to come.

_____________________________________________________________________

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.”

###

Muslim travel ban upheld, judge defers to SCOTUS ruling

U.S. DISTRICT Judge Derrick Kahala Watson punted, thus allowing Donald Trump's narrowed down travel ban to stay in place for the 90 days it will remain in effect.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson

When the Supreme Court allowed part of the Muslim ban to proceed last week, the ambiguity of the order was left to the Trump administration to define "bona fide" relations, who would be allowed to enter the country.

Under the ban, people from the six Muslim-majority nations that are impacted by the ban who sought new visas need to have either a 'close relationship' with a family member – parent, spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling – or an entity such as a business within the United States.

  

The guidelines do not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and other extended family.

Judge Watson wrote Thursday (July 7) afternoon: “Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017 injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here.”

Though Watson deferred clarifying the definition given by the Trump administration, Chin said the Hawaiian judge hadn't ruled on the merits of the request for a clarification, and suggested the state could pursue further legal action. "Whatever course it takes, we will get this resolved," he said in a written statement.

Hawaii has filed an appeal.

In most Asian families, the definition of immediate family differs from the western view of family. In many Asian cultures, the grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are considered immediate family. Having them live in the same household is not unusual.

By the time the 90-day order expires, the U.S. Supreme Court will agreed to llisten to arguments to the constitutionality of the executive order.

###

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.

###

Supreme Court expedites Muslim ban appeal; after tweeting criticism, FilAm lawyer reiterates his support for Trump

George Conway and his wife Kellyanne Conway attend a White House affair.

GEORGE CONWAY, the Filipino/American husband of Kellyanne Conway, advisor to Donald Trump and teller of alternate facts. is quickly trying to correct the impression that he may be rethinking his support for Trump after throwing shade on Trump's penchant for tweeting.

Trump's Executive Order for a Muslim ban may be more difficult to defend in front of the Supreme Court because of his recent tweets, according to George Conway, once considered for a post in the Trump administration.

It began when the current White House occupant inexplicity began issuing tweets about his Muslim bans No. 1 and No. 2. that has been stayed by the courts.

Right about now, George Conway is breathing a sigh of relief that he wasn't Trump's pick for Solicitor General, the attorney who will represent the White House in front of the Supreme Court. 

The Solicitor General will have to convince the high court that the travel bans were not intended to be Muslim bans, the main reason the courts ruled that the Executive Orders were unconstitutional.

RELATED: Appeals court upholds stay on executive order

Conway's first tweet said that Trump's tweets is hurting the government attorneys trying to defend the executive orders. 

The judges who stayed the Executive Orders , besides questioning the constitutionality of the orders, said that you cannot ignore the statements Trump and his representatives made during the campaign and in the early days of his administration. The orders, they ruled, were tantamount to bans based on religion since they targeted travelers and refugees from six countries that are predominantly Muslim.

RELATED: Another FilAm attorney might join Truimp team

To soften that argument, all of Trump's spokespeople, from Kellyanne Conway to Sean Spicer to DOJ Secretary Jeff Sessions, have been criticizing  the media who called the orders "travel bans."

Trump's tweets undercut that argument and caught his defenders offguard with their jaws on the floor.

After George Conway's first tweet, almost immediately, people began questioning his loyalties. Not known for his tweets, he scrambled and returned to social media again to clarify that his support for Trump is unchanged. "I VERY, VERY STRONGLY support POTUS," he tweeted.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Federal Court Judge Theodore Chuang's initial ruling so Trump asked the Supreme Court to look at his order.

"Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles — that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another," the ruling read. While the president has broad power over immigration, "that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked," the court said.

Late Friday (June 5), the Supreme Court expedited the government's appeal. The ACLU—which represents the plaintiffs—have been ordered to file their response by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 12. The ACLU lawyers must also respond to DOJ’s application for a stay by that time. At that time, the Supreme Court could rule before they recess later this month, or hold it until the next session

 ###