Thursday, March 16, 2017
Cato institute scholar notes subtleties in Maryland judge's order on Trump's Travel Ban 2.0
Dave Bier at the Cato institute had written a detailed argument on the constitutionality or statutory legality of various Trump travel bans back in February, link here (this had followed an early article in the New York Times Jan 27 here.
Bier found a copy of the Maryland judge’s stay yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, here.
Bier finds some relation in the Judge’s reasoning to his earlier articles, which seem to focus on the idea that Congress did not intend to allow visas to people who then cannot be allowed to enter the country (once at a border or airport) anyway. Apply logical or mathematical contraposition (like in high school plane geometry): if someone from one of the six banned countries has a visa, then he or she must be allowed into the country, according to the intent of previous federal immigration laws passed by Congress.
There is a lot of material to digest here. But what matters more is what will be effective.
Radicalization of family members of people already here legally (second generation) while in the U,S., even online, seems to be a much bigger issue than who can enter the country. And that idea has implications.
Furthermore, legitimate refugees and asylum seekers cannot be readily helped in the US in large numbers (Trump has cut the number to 50000) without thinking through the legal responsibilities of those in the US who would assist them (which gets into the whole private sponsorship issue, which is sorely lacking in the US compared to Canada).
Note a posting Wednesday on my main "BillBoushka" blog on social media and asylum seekers (my question to the Asylumist got answered).