Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. I'm Greg Store in our
Speaker 1: studios here in Washington, along with Michael Best in New York.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's new travel band isn't fearing any better in
Speaker 1: court than his first one did. Late yesterday, a federal
Speaker 1: judge in Hawaii halted Trump's latest effort to block people
Speaker 1: from a handful of largely Muslim countries from entering the US.
Speaker 1: Judge Derrick Watson said the policy was driven by religious animus,
Speaker 1: likely violating the Constitution, even though Trump had moved away
Speaker 1: from the explicit ban on Muslims that he proposed during
Speaker 1: the presidential campaign. At his re election rally and Nashville yesterday,
Speaker 1: Trump was defiant. You don't think this was done by
Speaker 1: a judge for political reasons? Do you know? This ruling
Speaker 1: makes us look weak, which, by the way, we no
Speaker 1: longer are. Believe me, just look at our borders. Adding
Speaker 1: to the administration's problems, a judge in Maryland separately issued
Speaker 1: an order blocking a Porsche and of the travel band.
Speaker 1: With us to discuss these new developments are Hans von Spakovski,
Speaker 1: a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and David Beer,
Speaker 1: an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Welcome to
Speaker 1: you both, Hans. You've defended this policy and by its terms,
Speaker 1: it talks about countries, not religion. But Judge Watson pointed
Speaker 1: to a long list of comments from Trump and some
Speaker 1: of his aids and advisers that that suggested the goal
Speaker 1: was the same as it was when Trump was explicitly
Speaker 1: calling for a religious test. So was Judge Watson wrong? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think he was. Look, you can you can have
Speaker 1: a debate, uh, And I'm sure I could have a
Speaker 1: debate with the CATO in suit about whether this is
Speaker 1: a good policy or necessary policy, But that is not
Speaker 1: the issue, or shouldn't be the issue in this case.
Speaker 1: The issue should be as the President acted within the
Speaker 1: authority delegated to him by by Congress. And I found
Speaker 1: it simply amazing that you can read through the entire
Speaker 1: forty three page opinion issued by the judge in Hawaii
Speaker 1: and there is no discussion about the legality or constitutionality
Speaker 1: of the federal immigration provision on which the order was
Speaker 1: explicitly based. This is a a section UM eleven eight two
Speaker 1: f of the US Code um UH that gives the
Speaker 1: President of power to suspend the entry of any aliens
Speaker 1: or class of entry, class of alien if he believes
Speaker 1: it will be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
Speaker 1: There's no discussion of that provision anywhere in the order,
Speaker 1: and that's what the judge should have done and didn't
Speaker 1: do well. David, you know, to follow up on that point.
Speaker 1: It seems as though the judge, at least in Hawaii,
Speaker 1: felt that the UH there was a constitutional problem with
Speaker 1: the order, notwithstanding any congressional delegation of power here. So
Speaker 1: you've got a broad delegation of power from Congress. I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone disputes that. In the president UH supporters
Speaker 1: in the in the White House depend on that as
Speaker 1: their argument. But if there's a if the judge is
Speaker 1: right that there is an animus here, is there a
Speaker 1: constitutional limit on what the president can do as regards immigration?
Speaker 1: There are, um, there were several noted in the Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit Court decision that originally barred the first Order. UM.
Speaker 1: But I would say that I think hanss is correct.
Speaker 1: I agree that the court should have focused on the
Speaker 1: statutory question here. I would just disagree with the assessment
Speaker 1: that the president has the power that he's asserting UM.
Speaker 1: Section two oh two of the Immigration and Nationality Acts
Speaker 1: specifically bar the President UM or any executive official from
Speaker 1: discriminating against immigrants based on nationality. And this provision was
Speaker 1: instituted in nineteen It came after these earlier provisions that
Speaker 1: Hans discussed talking about the president's power to bar entry UM.
Speaker 1: So this section two o two that was enacted in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty five would be seen as limiting this earlier
Speaker 1: provision of law UM and it and it goes even
Speaker 1: beyond that. When Congress amended these these immigration laws in ninet,
Speaker 1: it not only enacted this blanket prohibition on discrimination, but
Speaker 1: it also enacted a statutory scheme intended to produce unbiased
Speaker 1: immigration between countries. Before we had the Chinese Exclusion Act,
Speaker 1: we had the Asiatic bar Zone, and Congress in Nineve
Speaker 1: was saying, no, we're not going to do that anymore.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have uh immigrant visas issued equally between the nations,
Speaker 1: and uh, really, what Trump is trying to do is
Speaker 1: overturn that system. Hans. Other thing Judge Watson talked about
Speaker 1: what he said that the connection between this policy and
Speaker 1: any actual acts of terrorism was pretty weak, and the
Speaker 1: policy itself mentioned a couple of past incidents, but one
Speaker 1: had to do with Iraqis who are not covered by
Speaker 1: this policy, and the other had to do with a
Speaker 1: Somali who came here as a child. So even if
Speaker 1: we sort of grant that the president has very broad
Speaker 1: authority over national security, how does this even pass sort
Speaker 1: of the Laft test? Well, the the executive orders gave
Speaker 1: a couple of examples, it couldn't list the I think
Speaker 1: more than sixty examples of individuals convicted for terrorism related
Speaker 1: activities from these originally seven countries UH from a Senate
Speaker 1: um Um Committee report from from last year. But the
Speaker 1: other point that they just kind of gloss over is
Speaker 1: the fact that, look, three of these countries are considered
Speaker 1: by the U. S. State Department to be state sponsors
Speaker 1: of terrorism. And as the government said very uh explicitly
Speaker 1: in his brief UM, that makes vetting very difficult for
Speaker 1: people coming from those countries because you can't trust the
Speaker 1: information being given to you by the government. Three of
Speaker 1: the other nations in this UH, in this designated list
Speaker 1: are countries of concern as designated by the prior administration
Speaker 1: who also have big terrorist ties or failing governments, which
Speaker 1: makes it extremely difficult to vet people coming from those countries.
Speaker 1: All of those things taken together, give a solid basis
Speaker 1: for what the President did. And by the way, just
Speaker 1: very quickly, UM, I have to mention that the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has since that provision that David was talking about,
Speaker 1: has in more than one case for upheld the ability
Speaker 1: of the president again to to suspend the entry of aliens.
Speaker 1: You may recall in nine George H. W. Bush issues
Speaker 1: an executive order barring refugees from Haiti from coming into
Speaker 1: the country. Bill Clinton continued that bad and it was
Speaker 1: upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court in a case
Speaker 1: in David we have about thirty seconds. But um, is
Speaker 1: it appropriate for the courts to be looking at whether
Speaker 1: or not there are security incidents from these countries when
Speaker 1: it considers these questions. I think it's appropriate to look
Speaker 1: at whether or not he's using a pretext to discriminate. UM.
Speaker 1: I would just note on the Supreme Court case, it
Speaker 1: was really not addressed to people who were eligible for
Speaker 1: immigrant visas, who are being petitioned by US citizens, who
Speaker 1: have rights in the United States to our access to
Speaker 1: our immigration system, and what President Trump is doing is
Speaker 1: really not analogous to what these other presidents have done
Speaker 1: in the past. He's enacting a blanket ban on immigration
Speaker 1: from these countries and that's really not in accord with
Speaker 1: the statutes or with the laws. And you know, I
Speaker 1: would really think that the courts will uphold, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: this per vision. David, We're gonna have to leave it there.
Speaker 1: I want to thank David Beer, the Cato Institute, Hanson
Speaker 1: von Spakovsky of the the Heritage Foundation, and uh, coming up.
Speaker 1: That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. We'll be
Speaker 1: back tomorrow and coming up on Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Markets
Speaker 1: with Carol Masser and Corey Johnson. Stay tuned for that
Speaker 1: and more here on Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg