Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769 shortly after taking office as President of the United States. For 90 days, the decree restricted the entry of nationals from seven countries to the United States. This executive order's validity has been questioned in court, on the grounds that it violates many constitutional amendments, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In and by itself, the EO makes no mention of religion. However, remarks made by President Trump and his senior advisors during his campaign make it clear that the EO is focused on religion rather than national security considerations, as the EO says. On an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Corporation in January 2017, Trump argued that Christians were being persecuted in countries such as Syria. Besides, he argued that it was nearly impossible for those Christians to come into the United States. However, he promised that he would assist those Christians. Furthermore, during his campaigns, Donald Trump spoke of a Muslim ban. He promised his supporters that he would impose a ban on the immigration of “Muslims into the United States” due to the threat that they posed to the country. Further, one of Trump’s senior legal advisors, Rudolph Giuliani, confirmed these sentiments, arguing that the president required a legal way of stopping Muslims from entering the United States. From President's and his advisors' viewpoints on Muslim ban, therefore, one can conclude that the EO was issued on the grounds of religion, but not the national security interests. Besides, none of the immigrants from the seven countries whose citizens were barred from entering the United States had been responsible for the various terrorist acts in the United States.
Background of the Change in the U.S. Immigration Policy
The Establishment Clause forbids the United States Government from formulating any law that respects an establishment of religion. As deciphered by the Supreme Court in Larson v. Valente in 1982, the Establishment Clause states that one religious denomination cannot be preferred over another. Further, the clause bars the government from favoritism to one religion over others. Besides, it is if the government may not oppose or support any religion. From Trump's previous sentiments, it is apparent that he dislikes the Muslims or Islam and highly supports or prefers Christianity. Therefore, it can be seen that his intents on issuing the EO were based on his prejudice against the Muslim countries. The court should, therefore, consider Trump's previous sentiments in evaluating the intentions of the EO. One may argue that the Trump has not changed in person after being elected the president. It is more probable that he still holds the phobia or hatred that he has towards the Muslims. As the president, he has more powers, which he is using to drive his anti-Muslim agenda further. It would, therefore, be important that the court uses his previous statements against the Muslims to determine the intent of the EO.
The Alien and Sedition Act passed in 1798 signed into law by President John Adams. This law gave the regime at the time the power to deport foreigners and impose restrictions on new immigrants because “Federalists believed that Democratic-Republican criticism of Federalist policies was disloyal and feared that aliens living in the United States would sympathize with the French during a war” ("Founders Online: The Franco-American Treaty of Alliance, 6 February 1778", 2017). In a sense, the ban on entry of Syrian refugees is potentially leading us to turn our backs to the victims that are facing the worst humanitarian crisis in our current world. Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, had initiated a new policy that sought to protect illegal immigrants from repatriation and rather they were allowed to temporarily reside within the United States and were given the opportunity to engage in productive activities. The policy being proposed by the incumbent departs from the current policy on immigration and institutes some discriminatory practices.
President Trump identifies that the current policy has failed to reduce the number of illegal immigration to the United States. In order to fix this, he plans on introducing stringent measures at the border points. Some of these measures include the banning of Muslims that want to enter the country from the aforementioned seven countries. The president also has directed the immigration officials to aggressively deport undocumented immigrants. Unlike his predecessor, Trump relies on the Priority Enforcement Program of deportation. He plans on focusing on the deportation of all immigrants who lack the necessary papers and who posed a threat to national security in one way or the other.
The Changes in the Immigration Policy
In order to change the current policies on immigration the president has directed that the security agents that are tasked with the mandate of removing illegal immigrants do so expeditiously since their absorption into the country had led to the influx in crime and consequently pose a threat to national security (Alvarez, 2017). The executive order that was proposed seeks to empower the immigration officials to determine whether or not an individual posed a threat to the nation’s security and thereafter deny or assent to their admission into the country. The president issued a directive that sought to increase the number of immigration officials by at least 10,000 personnel (The White House, 2017). This would ensure that there would be adequate manpower to enforce the policy changes that have been proposed.
The president cannot achieve the initiatives he has put in place on his own. He plans on incorporating the state government who will foresee the enforcement of these policies within their specific jurisdictions. In line with this, the president seeks to empower both local and state security agents to take up duties of immigration officials within the country. The federal government will also engage the heads of the various states and the local governments in order to have collective agreements on the manner in which they will implement the changes in the immigration policy (The White House, 2017). The next arm of government that will be incorporated in the enforcement of the policy changes is the judiciary. Their role will be in the adjudication of cases that would be raised either by the Attorney General or the Secretary in relation to the violation of 8 U.S.C 1373 that relates to sanctuary jurisdictions (The White House, 2017). These are states that fail to deport immigrants that lack the necessary documentation. In the alternative, they put frameworks that accommodate them. The judiciary will, therefore, have the mandate of determining whether or not the states are culpable and if indeed the penalties that the federal government seeks to institute such as limitation of grants are appropriate.
Likelihood of Success
The president’s move is likely to be implemented though it is highly unlikely that it will achieve all the initiatives that it seeks to achieve. This is due to the fact that the change in the immigration policy is seen as a discriminatory approach to a minority of the people within the society and this has been construed to lead to a violation of the constitution. The other intricate nature of the policy relates with its enforceability. The policy seeks to impose some punitive measures on the states that fail to uphold and provides measures for its implementation within their respective jurisdiction. This seems like a move that challenges the autonomy of the state to take all appropriate measures to run its affairs. Due to the fact that the protection of immigrants is enshrined in the constitution, there is bound to be a deadlock as to whether the executive order that was signed by the president has more authority than the provisions of the constitution of the United States. The general rule is that no legislative statute should go contrary to the constitution and in the event that it does, the law is void to the extent of the inconsistency. This is one of the grounds that can be relied on to challenge the validity of the order.
The courts have already set their stance on the matter and a district court judge clearly stated that the executive order was invalid since it purported to discriminate against the Muslims. An injunction was issued and this prompted the president to amend the order which was subsequently challenged. The policy change has also faced opposition from some unlikely quarters within the president’s own backyard, at the Department of Justice. At the time the order was being enforced, the acting Attorney General, Sally Yates refused to be associated with it and highlighted the fact that these were the general sentiments at the Department of Justice.
In another twist, the announcement of the policy changes led to numerous protests from the Muslim community that felt prejudiced by the directive citing the fact that it discriminated against them. This led to riots in the country's capital and in the airports where hundreds of Muslim immigrants were stranded following the president's order. Various human rights organizations have also challenged the policy change to due to its violation of the civil rights that are enshrined in the constitution and other conventions signed and ratified by the United States.
Public Opinion on the Proposed Immigration Policy
The president’s directive has drawn mixed sentiments from various places depending on the ideologies that people ascribe to on the matter. There is a majority of the people who are in support of the immigration policy and their stance is influenced by the belief that the Muslims that are absorbed into the country from various countries pose a great security risk. Some of the examples that they can relate to including the infamous September 11 incident where hundreds of Americans lost their lives after a terror attack was conducted by the Al-Qaeda Terrorist group that was under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. This attack was not easily detected by the intelligence agencies due to the fact that the perpetrators had enshrined themselves within the society and there was no plausible manner to detect their plot. It caught everyone unaware and to many, this was a major turning point.
A recent opinion poll by Reuters/Ipsos that was conducted on February 1, 2017, confirmed that indeed a majority of the people supported the policy directive. This was inference was arrived at after 49 percent of the respondents affirmed their support against the 41 percent of the population who were against it. This is a clear indication that the country’s stance in relation to national security. Most people feel that the government is allowed to take reasonable steps to protect them and will support some limitation of their civil rights if it was in relation to national security. The 41 percent who oppose the move outlines the people who admonish any attempt by the government to infringe on civil liberties since this opens a Pandora's Box for the perpetuation of other intrusions under the pretense of protection of national security.
Personal Opinion
After witnessing friends losing loved ones and scores more losing their property and being injured courtesy of terror-related activities, I support the move by the current regime to impose some restrictions on the people who are allowed in the country. The seven countries that formed the subject matter of the ban have time and again been linked with affiliations with terrorist groups. The governments in the said countries have failed to deal with the terrorism menace and this has led to the prevalence of terror-related activities within the countries. America and other countries, therefore, need to exercise caution when dealing with anyone that is domiciled in these countries in order to avoid accommodating a person that would threaten the peace and stability within the country.
My considered view on the issue stems from a realistic approach to the immigration policy as placed against national security. With as much as much as the executive order tends to limit some of the civil liberties that are protected under the law the intention is not a malicious one but is a positive act that is in tandem with the government's mandate to take all reasonable steps to protect the country from both internal and external intrusion's that would jeopardize the security. The apparent civil rights will definitely not be able to be enjoyed in instances where there is no security to foresee its implementation. The immigration policy has been put in place to mitigate the number of immigrants who are likely to cause affect national security. Therefore this is a delicate balance that in most instances will tilt towards national security.
Conclusion
The act of putting in place the immigration policy by the president has been marred by numerous controversies both internally and internationally. These are due to the divergence of ideas on the substance of the executive order and the implications it has towards the society. Nonetheless, it seems that the move is a clearly thought out action that seeks to ensure that national security is protected. The United States should not take a chance by trying to please the world by focusing on protection of the rights of the immigrants at the expense of ascertaining its citizen’s security at the backdrop of numerous terror related attacks that have been witnessed in the recent past.
Works Cited
Alvarez, P. (2017). How Trump Is Changing Immigration Enforcement. The Atlantic. Retrieved
1 May 2017, from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/trump-executive-order-immigration/515454/
Dorf, M. (2017). Michael Dorf: Will Trump’s new travel ban succeed?. Newsweek. Retrieved 2
May 2017, from http://www.newsweek.com/michael-dorf-will-trump-new-travel-ban-succeed-559620
Founders Online: The Franco-American Treaty of Alliance, 6 February 1778. (2017).
Founders.archives.gov. Retrieved 2 May 2017, from https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-25-02-0476
The White House. (2017). Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the
United States. whitehouse.gov. Retrieved 2 May 2017, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email