February 4, 2017 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - A Seattle Federal Judge, James L. Robart, yesterday issued a temporary restraining order [TRO] that if left standing will largely gut president Trump’s executive order issued just days ago limiting immigration from a number of terror linked nations.
It would also establish a nightmare precedent placing the matter of immigration law firmly in the hands of the judiciary, thus additionally granting itself ultimate executive and legislative authority on the matter.
The meager 7 page document is so flawed that it verges on being childish. For example the court fails to even attempt to establish exactly what alleged damage the two states would suffer if the president’s executive order were to remain in place.
Heightening the lunacy of this case, in the decision, the judge clearly states, then immediately proceeds to ignore the traditional grounds whereby restraining actions of this nature can be legitimately issued in the first place:
“An extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate  that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case,  that he is liable to suffer irreparable harm in absence of preliminary relief… that an injunction is in the public interest.” [source, State of Washington, et al, v. Donald Trump, et al., pg. 3]
One must note that this definition was originally issued in 1977, giving it over 40 years standing as an accepted legal precedent.
In its place, Robart ignores the established standard, instead basing his decision upon a simple declaration that the federal government exerting its constitutional power to choose which non-citizens can legally gain entry into the United States somehow inherently and irreparably harms the plaintiff state’s public institutions.
If this decision is upheld upon a full hearing and appeal, it will be nothing less than a judicial coup.
The president, along with Congress make immigration law, it is not the purview of the states as was so recently demonstrated in Arizona v U.S., where SCOTUS ruled that states are so constrained on immigration matters that they can’t even enforce federal law on their own.
Justices like Robart are becoming the norm rather than the exception, he is clearly substituting his own prejudices in this case while seeking refuge in the flimsiest federal court argument this writer has seen advanced in a very long time. And it for this reason why Robart has no place on the bench and should immediately be removed for malfeasance.
Applicable sections of U.S. immigration law consistent with the president's executive order:
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
(B) Factors to be taken into account
(i) In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s—
(III) family status;
(IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and
(V) education and skills.
(C) Foreign policy
(i) In general
An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.
(7) Documentation requirements
(i) In general Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any immigrant at the time of application for admission—
((I) who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by this chapter, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 1181(a) of this title, or
(II) whose visa has been issued without compliance with the provisions of section 1153 of this title,
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airlines. [source, Cornell Law]
©2017 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.