Immigration

3 Changes We Are Likely to See in Trump's Revised Travel Ban

What will the president do to address the 9th Circuit's due process concerns?

|

White House

Instead of seeking a rehearing on the question of whether the temporary restraining order against his travel ban should be lifted, President Trump plans to issue a revised executive order next week that addresses the due process concerns raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In a brief filed yesterday, Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler say Trump will "rescind the Order," which suspended the admission of refugees for 120 days and imposed a 90-day ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, and "replace it with a new, substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the [appeals court] panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns." At his press conference yesterday, Trump said he will issue the revised order "toward the beginning or middle" of next week. Here are three changes he is likely to make:

1. The new order will explicitly exclude lawful permanent residents from the travel ban. The Supreme Court has said green-card holders have a right to due process if the government tries to stop them from re-entering the country after traveling abroad. The Trump administration concedes that point but says the travel ban should not be interpreted as covering lawful permanent residents (LPRs), even though officials at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security initially said it did. "The principal basis of the panel's decision was its conclusion that the Order applies to LPRs," Francisco and Kneedler say. "The Order is ambiguous in this respect and, at the time it was issued, was reasonably interpreted to encompass LPRs. However, it is also reasonably interpreted to exclude LPRs, and the White House Counsel's '[a]uthoritative guidance' confirms that narrower interpretation."

2. The new order probably will exclude people who do not have green cards but are already legally living in the United States. The Trump administration thinks the 9th Circuit was wrong to suggest that people from the seven banned countries who are legally working or studying in the U.S. on nonimmigrant visas have any due process rights when the government decides to revoke their visas. Francisco and Kneedler say "no court has adopted" that position, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has rejected it. But the visas of students and scholars at state universities are at the center of the case before the 9th Circuit, which was brought by Washington and Minnesota, so it seems likely that Trump's revised order will leave them alone. "The Order's principal focus is on aliens who have never entered this country and have no connection to it," Francisco and Kneedler say. "The Supreme Court 'has long held that an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application.'" It sounds like Trump will narrow the order so that its scope is defined by this "principal focus."

3. The new order will clarify that it has no impact on asylum applications. The 9th Circuit noted that refugees have a statutory right to seek asylum once they have arrived in the United States, meaning they have potential due process claims if they are summarily ejected from the country. Francisco and Kneedler say the 120-day ban on refugees "does not address the existing statutes or regulations for aliens who are physically present or arriving in the United States and are seeking asylum or similar protection."

In declining to override the TRO against Trump's order, the 9th Circuit also said the travel ban raises due process concerns insofar as it applies to foreign nationals "who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert." The Supreme Court has neither accepted such third-party claims nor definitively ruled them out. In Kerry v. Din, a 2015 case involving a U.S. citizen whose Afghan husband was denied an immigration visa, three justices said she had no due process right to challenge that decision, two said that even if she did she had already received due process, and four agreed that her due process rights had been violated.

Francisco and Kneedler say Din proves the 9th Circuit "is wrong" to think LPRs or citizens could make due process claims in connection with aliens (such as employees or relatives) they have an interest in seeing admitted to the United States. It seems to me that Din does not resolve the issue either way. In any case, it is hard to see how Trump could address the 9th Circuit's concern on this score without abandoning the travel ban, the very nature of which is to exclude people based on their country of origin, without regard to individual circumstances such as relationships with people in the U.S. In fact, Francisco and Kneedler argue that a blanket ban is immune from a due process challenge precisely because it "reflects a 'general determination' rather than one resting on 'individual grounds.'"

The order does allow "case-by-case" waivers "in the national interest," which could be used, for example, to let universities and other employers hire people from the banned countries. Perhaps the revised order will flesh out this provision by offering examples of which visitors may qualify.

"With the scope of the Order properly understood," Francisco and Kneedler say, "the overwhelming majority of its applications give rise to no due process concerns whatsoever." That is true only if you assume the admittedly "ambiguous" travel ban does not cover LPRs, who accounted for most of the people affected by Trump's order as it was originally interpreted.

Based on green cards issued during the last decade, there could be as many as half a million LPRs from the seven banned countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). By comparison, 85,000 refugees were admitted to the United States in fiscal year 2016; the Obama adminstration thought 110,000 should be admitted this fiscal year, and Trump's order reduces the cap to 50,000. Visitors from the seven banned countries with nonimmigrant visas (including tourists, business travelers, students, and temporary workers) totaled 86,000 in fiscal year 2015. There were also something like 26,000 new arrivals with immigrant visas. So even if half the people who received green cards in the last 10 years subsequently became citizens, LPRs would still outnumber all of the other people covered by the order.

At yesterday's press conference, Trump claimed "we had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban," "the rollout was perfect," and judicial interference was "the only thing that was wrong with the travel ban." Many Republicans, including members of Congress who think the vetting of visitors should be improved, disagree, and their main concern was the uncertainty about whether LPRs could return to their homes after traveling abroad. Trump's failure to foresee that problem shows how little thought he put into an order that gratuitously upset the plans and expectations of thousands of innocent people.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

26 responses to “3 Changes We Are Likely to See in Trump's Revised Travel Ban

  1. What are the chances it will include Saudi Arabia? That would be hilarious.

  2. I’m going to need a definitive freaking out level on this one. Since the restraining order, we’ve reverted from FreakCon One to FreakCon Four.

    1. Look, if you haven’t been running on Peak Freakout since at least November 8th, i’m not sure what to tell you.

    2. ummm, if you’re going to refer to the five graduated levels of freak out, remember that FREAKCON increases in severity from FREAKCON 5 (least severe–entails some hyperventilating, but no pearl-clutching) to FREAKCON 1 (most severe–which includes pants-shitting) to match varying freak out situations.

      1. No doy. The restraining order briefly calmed things down.

    3. Le freak, c’est Chic.

  3. The Trump administration concedes that point but says the travel ban should not be interpreted as covering lawful permanent residents (LPRs), even though officials at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security initially said it did.

    “Oh, come on! It should’ve been clear I meant to say that greencard holders could come back to the US! Right?”
    “Well, the order seemed very clear to me, and that included legal permanent residents. If you meant not to include them, why didn’t you write the law that way?”
    “See, this is what mean when I say I inherited a mess. A mess! How can I do anything if my officials refuse to read my mind and only go by what orders I sign? Terrible!”

  4. The Trump administration thinks the 9th Circuit was wrong to suggest that people from the seven banned countries who are legally working or studying in the U.S. on nonimmigrant visas have any due process rights when the government decides to revoke their visas.

    That’s right. They should not have any recourse even when they paid a lot of money to obtain those visas including a steep non-refundable application fee which does not guarantee issuance, and even when the government is mandated by the Constitution to keep the sanctity of contracts. Why, who do these towel heads think they are? They’re less than human, anyway.

  5. 4. The new order probably will not be titled “Muslim Ban”.

  6. “the White House Counsel’s ‘[a]uthoritative guidance'”

    This is “amusing” because the 9th circuit specifically said, and clearly took some pleasure in doing so, that the White House Counsel was, basically, a nobody:

    “The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.

    “Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.”

    Feel the burn!

  7. Many Republicans, including members of Congress who think the vetting of visitors should be improved, disagree, and their main concern was the uncertainty about whether LPRs could return to their homes after traveling abroad.

    Ah, many Trumpistas were on Tee Vee asserting their belief that even Greencard holders did not have a right to re-enter the United States if the president said so. El Se?or Presidente Bananero Trumpo can do no wrong!

  8. Personally, I’d like to see an order drafted by somebody who knows something about the Constitution and the laws and SCOTUS decisions regarding the Constitution and the laws rather than somebody who thinks he knows more about all that law-type stuff than John Madison and all twelve guys on the Supreme Court put together. Even if he does have a very good brain.

  9. “”””The 9th Circuit noted that refugees have a statutory right to seek asylum once they have arrived in the United States””””

    So they should not be allowed to enter the US

  10. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…
    =============== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  11. I’m betting the Progs will freak out over the new EO, even though it seems to apply the kinds of compromises that the Progs are always demanding in the interest of bi-partisanship.

  12. If you ban them then you have to stop bombing them. Oh you disagree? LOL, the American people will come out by the millions to box you about the ears.

    1. This makes zero sense. We are bombing them because we want them dead (rightly or wrongly). If we want them dead how would we logically also want them driving NYC cabs?

  13. “a new, substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the [appeals court] panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns.”

    Ah, yes, the panel was so erroneous in its reasoning that the administration is drafting a new order instead of either petitioning for rehearing to the panel, seeking an en banc hearing, or petitioning to SCOTUS….

  14. RE: 3 Changes We Are Likely to See in Trump’s Revised Travel Ban
    What will the president do to address the 9th Circuit’s due process concerns?

    Since when do the republicans and democrats care about due process?

  15. Does my mail order bride have standing to sue for due process?

  16. Yeah, it’s pretty obvious that the constitution meant to disallow the president from excluding anybody from entering the U.S. The DoJ–remember that these are still holdovers from Obama–belatedly addressed Judge Robart’s arguments, eviscerating them point by point. Perhaps the most absurd conclusion of Robart’s opinion is that, following his logic, a president would not be able to prohibit the entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals from a country with which we were at war.

    If representative, the comments on this thread amplify quite well why libertarians will never be more than smug political irrelevancies in this country. Too bad.

  17. Have all foreigners from the seven barred countries route travel through GITMO. If there’s a problem – just keep them there until it’s cleared up. That way not “dry foot” issues.

  18. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law wiz like actually making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twenty months and at present cleared the dept on there apartment and bout a great new Citroen CV . look here…….
    ________________________ http://www.4dayjobs.com

  19. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
    ===================== http://www.moneytime10.com

  20. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.