On Immigration

I commented here on President Trump's initial Executive Order restricting immigrant travel to the United States.  Now that the Supreme Court has weighed in, where do we stand?

- Click here to read last week's unanimous Supreme Court opinion.

- The 9-0 ruling included the liberal bloc of justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotamoyor) joining the moderates and conservatives to overturn the multiple lower court rulings that blocked President Trump's immigration order.  Chief Justice Roberts craves unanimity when possible, and likely negotiated language in order to achieve the unanimous opinion.  Such wisdom and bipartisanship demonstrate a commitment to law - not politics - and in this instance, helped ensure a calm and restrained response from interest groups and others who disagree with President Trump's order.  Recall the outrage and widespread protests just a few months ago.  Now, with the same contentious Order substantially in place, the streets are quiet.  What changed?

- Of the many directives in the Executive Order (all of which the lower courts blocked, nationwide), the Supreme Court opinion focused on the President suspending entry of foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days (Iraq was initially on the list, but was later removed).  Here, the Court emphasized that foreign nationals not previously admitted to the U.S. have "no constitutional right of entry to this country," but also acknowledged that denying entry, in some instances, can result in hardship to a U.S. person or entity.  Therefore, the Court ruled that entry of foreign nationals who have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the U.S." may continue until there is a ruling on the merits of the case to determine the rights of the parties.

This fall, the Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on the underlying case.  But with timelines expiring and a likely superseding Order from the President, it's possible the specific issues in this case will no longer be ripe for the Court to resolve this fall.

- Although they joined the unanimous decision, the three conservative justices (Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas) disagreed with the judicial creation of a "bona fide relationship test" on the belief that the Government's national security interest outweighs any burden on U.S. persons or entities caused by the temporary denial of a foreign national's entry to the U.S.  Here, the justices deferred to the executive branch's powers on immigration matters, resisting the temptation  of performing a superlegislative role of implementing policy from the bench.

- Within our highly partisan and combative political climate, does it seem that too many commentators are much too quick to judge the motivations of those who disagree with them?  When it comes to immigration, can a person desire a policy that emphasizes security as well as economic growth and opportunity without being labeled an intolerant bigot?  Can one be a compassionate person while also wanting elected officials to focus on American jobs and homeland security, or even favoring an immigration policy that nourishes a culture of unity and acclimation?  Are these priorities mutually exclusive, or can they coexist in the year 2017?

I often wonder whether the opposition to current immigration policy has more to do with a dislike of President Trump than a fundamental disagreement with the underlying approach.  Especially as it relates to the courts, would the exact same order issued by someone other than President Trump have been blocked and protested so vehemently?

- Depending on their perspective, people can obviously label President Trump in a variety of colorful ways.  But after observing the administration's response to the multiple federal court rulings against his immigration order, do you think the terms "Hitler" and "Totalitarian" apply to President Trump?  Although he used the bully pulpit to uniquely attempt persuasion, did his actions ever challenge the authority of what many see as an overreaching judiciary?  As the representative of a separate and equal branch of government, President Trump openly criticized judges who ruled against him.  But has he actually performed an act to undermine the rule of law?  At least as it relates to this most controversial topic of immigration, what does it tell you that the Supreme Court has now unanimously sided with him rather than his detractors?