Trump Versus Hawaii

Trump v. Hawaii Constrained Court View and the influences on the Supreme Court Thesis: The main aim of this text is to highlight the misdeeds of the trump administration ruling on the immigration policy to the extent of the law. Legal precedence always follows facts and without that, the law is void and needs clarification. In the constrained view of the case, there is need to look at the implications on the economics, culture, outlook and psychology of the people involved. The law affects immigrants from all nations of Islam.

The need to get the law right on this one is still in contention since various factions argue to differ. The law states clearly that America is land of the free but again, the law dictates that the government is mandated by the constitution to help the citizens preserve their security and be able to stay safe. The Trump vs Hawaii law of 2018 clearly has contentions. In terms of culture, the Muslims are affected since their rights to religion is monitored and certain practices banned in the United States.

This infringes in their right to freely express themselves since they need the actual law to protect them as aliens. The civil rights act of 1969 protects them against slavery and any misdeeds since in the country they are viewed as illegal aliens and need the protectionist rights to be able to live freely. in terms of economics, most of the people are affected. Being that their country men are known terrorists, the risk averse is transferred to them and thus suffer the consequences.

They need every available resources to be able to survive in a foreign country but if they are denied the right, they will not be able to. Socially, they are segregated and most people will not want to interact with them. It is important to note the difference in opinion between the courts and the president on this issue. As much as it protects the people form harm, there is collateral damage in terms of innocent people on the other side being victimized for nothing.

The law has to protect the citizens and the immigrants in equal measure. The security threat is real to everyone, even the immigrants. They stand to lose the most since they suffer discrimination, neglect, economic choking and sun standard services including education and medical services. Case Summary: The executive order 13780 and 13769 as part of president Trump’s immigration policy, there was need to limit the entry of foreigners to the US. Some of the countries blacklisted were Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Syria.

They were believed to house many extremists’ terrorists who spewed foul language about the US in the internet. There was a grace period for this ban to allow for negotiations on the way forward since there had been rumors of imminent attacks on the United States. Ever since the September 2001 attacks on the twin towers, vigilance in terms of security has been observed. Consequent attacks on Boston, New York and Los Angeles made the law become strict since America was believed to be a breeding ground for terrorists.

The grace period of 90 days was to allow time for negotiations with the various governments on the correct form of foreign policy to adopt, but at the same time flush out the terrorists in the US. The president was right to enact the executive order since it was within his right to force the law to work. The constrained view of the court protected the right of everyone, including the terrorists, leaving the American people vulnerable to the attacks that were now increasing and efforts to thwart them were dwindling.

The main issue is similar to that of the fourth circuit case in Maryland where Judge Theodore Chuang declared a national preliminary injunction on blocking the enforcement of only section 2(c) of the executive order, imposing a 90-day suspension on the entry of immigrants. Hawaii Judge issued an extension on the injunction but further enjoined sections 2 and 6 of the executive order to their entirety. This was to reduce the refugee influx since it was a 120-day ban.

There was to be an internal review by various cabinet ministers, to ensure that vetting of immigrants and foreign nationals from the six targeted countries was above board and that no unnecessary discrimination was taking place. Hawaii challenges executive order 13780 citing first amendment violations of the constitution. The state of Hawaii itself was formed as a result of Supreme Court decision so they were within every right to appeal.

The most important legislation was of travel ban yet, Hawaii saw itself as part of the US and banning travel for foreigners marked them for destruction since they were a struggling economy trying to put their social, political and economic sectors in order. The law targets immigrants and refugees, citing from the national Security Council memo, saying that every foreigner is a threat to national security until they are vetted.

It is important for the refugees and immigrants to be protected under the first amendment stating America as the land of the free. It is also important to accept that most people are inclined to travel to the US for fear of being labelled suspects, but the constitution protects all of them from discrimination. Judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order barring sections 2 and 6 of the executive order form going into play.

It was important to leave time for negotiation to allow other immigrant to get their right when coming into the US. The law has its flaws but in the end it protects all the citizens from harm. It is important for the courts to admit the fact that not all the laws implemented are true to the fact but rather assumption form previous laws couples with the unnecessary bureaucracy of the courts to be able to get a desired outcome.

Elements of Constrained Court View (CCV) In this instance, the law is not the motivator but rather security of the country. The law states clearly in the 4th amendment on equal protection of rights for citizens and foreigners in equal measure since American’s foreign policy is friendly. Terrorist attacks have been rampant on American soil, mainly because of various wars happening in other countries. In a dossier by the CIA, the invasion of the Middle Eastern countries brewed up hate for American at large.

There have been cases of kidnappings, killings and bombings both at home and in the Middle East to warrant a warning. Most of the problems stem with policies that countries enact. The problematic view of the events on the bombings in America calls for constrained views on the need and wants of all the necessary laws in place. The courts took every effort to give people time to resolve the matter since the economics of the executive order were not viable.

There are citizens who have work visas but were denied entry due to this law. There are students who were to start the semester but were denied entry due to this law. The question that looms is that to what end? There are people who depend on work in the United States to support their families back home but in case the law does not favor them, they are left to hope for the best since not all cases get resolved quickly.

The problem with the law is not facts, but evidence of facts and consultation process. It is imperative to select the best methods to address the issues at hand. Immigration policies in the United States were favorable, enabling people to travel to and from the US freely with minimal restrictions. The law had to be adjusted since there were chatters of imminent attacks by terrorists travelling freely into the country and getting away with the crimes.

There has to be strict immigration policy to enable deep vetting of individuals entering the country and the need to root out who was a genuine citizen or not. Their civil and privacy laws will be violated since there is a search on their personal finances, criminal records, priors and any other relevant digital data to help profile them. Most people from the Middle East were categorized on a profile of being potential terrorists. They were designated special task forces to vet them when entering the country.

Government sanctioned operations made it important to ensure that all the loopholes in the country were sealed to ensure that no stone was left unturned. There is a need to show that not everyone was happy with this decision but president Trump, upon his election in 206, made good on the promise to make America great again.

It is not news to them when they enacted the laws, in their defense, they have the right to defend and protect the American people, and the constitution gives them all the power through Congress to enact and implement laws of the land. The expansion of the executive order through the presidential proclamation 9645 citied impunity on the part of the executive. The courts thwarted the order citing consultation issues and the need to preserve the rights of its citizens.

There is much needed for the case to go further, with the dissenting voice of Judge Sonia. She stated that the court could not vacate the judgement on October 10th with regard to the fourth circuit case. Their review of the case was to be dismissed since all laws were in place and the necessary documents had been drafted to help guide the authorities on how to handle the people as per regulatory demands.

In the 8 U.S.C, the argument is leaning towards key statutory provisions in the executive order. The 8 1182 (f) which gives the president powers to suspend entry of aliens to the country was overboard. Article 1152(a)(1)(A), forbids discrimination against foreign nationals in any situation possibly because they are not complicit in a crime being accused of. The discrimination based on race and gender is also condemned in the article and it helps the immigrants gain safe passage into the country devoid of any problems dealing with immigration.

Their visas were revoked and had to reapply again, this violated their constitutional right as citizens by extension as they possess work permits and go ahead by the government to live and work in the United States. The state of Hawaii represents a section of the population. The plaintiff however, was not well represented in numbers. Many American saw it as a valid order to stop the immigration due to looming economic problems, as well as social problems. It occurred to the plaintiff, Dr.

Ismail that, the system was for the American people and not immigrants. The constitution protects everybody within the borders of the state, but in extreme circumstances there is need to reevaluate your position on immigrants and prevent attacks on your home soil. The case of trump vs hawaii is a prime example of the executive overlooking the human right aspect of a law and purely clinging on logic. Counter arguments Discrimination, post 14th amendment was allowed by the courts in terms of law.

In Bardwell vs Illinois (1872) women were openly barred from practicing law. The patriarchal system did not give room for development of women in society yet the constitution was amended to provide the same. It is not in precedence to allow such an ignorance to occur, especially on immigrants with their rights being infringed upon by the very people who sworn to protect and uphold the constitution. The most important clause is the human rights aspect. Most of the immigrants go to America to look for greener pastures.

Most mean no harm. To categorize them in profiles infringes on their civil rights since by default, they are discriminated against and have no say in their defense. There is no presumption of innocence which is a provision in law. There are two presumption is law that ought to be applies in this case. Irrebuttable where no evidence can be used to contradict a fact. In the penal code and amendment is clearly stated. Most of the evidence in this case is used to generalize facts. All Muslims are terrorist.

The young and old ought to be vetted to ensure that all the necessary angles are covered and that the security of the country is preserved, it is important to note also that every law in the land clearly protects the citizens as well as the immigrants. Courts have a duty to protect all the citizens to ensure fairness and justice to all of them despite their circumstances. Rebuttable where a fact can be contradicted using evidence.

The fact that most terrorists turn out to be Muslims allude to the fact the religion is the problem. There are extremist views when it comes to religion and always leads to war.

It is important to note that every law in the constitution has a role and in this case the evidence contradict the fact by stating vetting Muslims form the middle east is as a result of constant attacks by people from that region to ensure that anyone that comes from that region is vetted to assess their threat levels. The Supreme Court is inclined to rule in favor of the citizens since it is their mandate to interpret the constitution.

Most of the articles in the law state that executive orders always override congressional hearings but in this case the president has veto powers to pass the law without congress. It is tyrannical in sense but necessary. For every law passed to protect the American people, a life is saved and most threats are sent back to their mother land. The Supreme Court had the ability to show that not everyone is right in this case, not even the president.

The most attention the case gets in that most immigrants are affected and this thwarts the reasonable national security issue. The labor laws are violated since the immigrants with work visas, are detained without pay or even end up losing their livelihood due to this law. The courts are mandated to address all these issues to come up with a viable solution.

Presumptions of facts which are facts that are stated, always infer to a guilty conscious but at the same time the need for an agreeable reason to enact a law. The immigrants deserve a chance to get the fruits of their labor; good wages, good working conditions, equal rights and respect for the rule of law. The important aspect of laws are always ignored since it is difficult to interpret the law as quorum.

The courts cannot always appear to look weak since they have the law at hand, and are free to interpret it in any way. There is need to get the right interpretation of the law and encourage the likelihood of the aggrieved always trusting in the system to do the right thing. Arguments about Trump’s campaign utterances were enough to challenge the executive order.

President Trump was a man of his word, and in his campaign trail, he made utterances that were not to be considered in a court of law but to many people’s surprise, he managed to get them to pass into law. Not only did the utterance convert into law, but executive orders were signed and implemented as per the campaign promises. The politics in the case dilutes the fact of the matter.

There is some sort of entitlement in the foreign nationals corner but suffice to say, not all of.