I don’t think anyone is saying that the US is constitutionally required to have open borders, as you assert. What this case is about is whether the president’s EO violates constitutional rights.
The judge, by trying, on Constitutional grounds, to block the part of the order that prevents issuing of visas (note: issuing of future visas, not canceling current ones) to a particular class of aliens.
The correct framing would be that you have the constitutional right not to have a visa denied to you on the basis of your religion. Or, alternatively, that you have the constitutional right not to have a visa denied to your employees or family members on the basis of their religion.
That might be true and might be false, as a matter of law. But it is the question, at least with respect to the Establishment Clause (which is one of 5-6 arguments being made in these cases).
Daring to look to a point of view that may support the administration’s position…
From a February 2009 article at the website of the Center for Immigration Studies (self described as advocating a "Low-immigration, Pro-Immigrant"point of view) by Jon Feere…
The article is rather long but a good read. It does provide quite a few cites. As it comes from the early days of the first Obama administration at least it is not something put together with intent of supporting the current administration.
Generally courts have been reluctant to wade very far into the immigration pool. As noted, they often defer to the other branches of government in these matters considering much of the subject matter to be beyond court review. Thus is the basis for plenary power that the legislative branch holds over immigration and, particularly as it is enumerated in the Constitution, over naturalization.
And if Congress was so foolish as to surrender its enumerated power to the Executive, well, that may mean that the anti-Trump rulings are doomed to go down upon judicial review with a higher court remanding with an order to reverse. Stare decisis is a bitch. The long standing court precedents really are that the courts are loathe to question such matters.
Here’s an article that argues that the judge overreached by making his TRO national where the Supreme Court explicitly warned federal judges not to do so.
Since when is standing conferred on someone who knows someone who might be harmed? If someone runs over my employee in his car, may I sue them? May the State sue them? That’s absurd.
I agree with others that there is no constitutional rights to foreign nationals outside our borders; no right to a Visa, and no right to not be discriminated against based upon race or religion.
Let’s say we get into war with Canada (which would serve them right!), the holding of this decision would be that barring immigration from Canada would be a violation of the constitution as we would be making laws which overwhelmingly harm white and protestant people, and would be discrimination based upon nationality. Further it would harm any company that current employs Canadians.
The President would like to keep hostile and belligerent Canadians out, but the courts would open the door for them.
I’ve said in other threads that as a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary has no power to unilaterally overrule the executive. As this is a mere district court, it would be akin to a low level executive ordering around the Supreme Court, or a Congressional page ordering the President do so something. Judicial power as practiced by the left is dangerous and unchecked.
Jefferson would have certainly ignored this order.
Here’s another poster calling for the President to ignore the courts based on a flawed understanding of the law. One can only imagine how widespread this view is within the Executive Branch.
It’s not really a matter of mistreating people overseas; we’re talking about an American law that attempts to restrict the privileges of people abroad to travel into the United States. The president has the prerogative (a broad one) to regulate or restrict immigration, but he cannot do so on grounds that clearly discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or other recognized criteria. Even foreign visitors have essentially the same constitutional rights as American citizens, except for the right to come here or remain here indefinitely.
A president can say to both a German immigrant and a Somali immigrant “Sorry, but we are not accepting visa applications at this time.”
A president can also say “You, German immigrant, are welcome at this time” while simultaneously saying “You, Somali immigrant, may or may not be accepted at this time, depending on the results of an extensive background investigation.”
But as far as I know, a president is out of bounds when he starts saying things like “We’re gonna take Christians and white immigrants, but not Muslim and brown-skinned ones.”
There would be a valid national security argument that a president could make, and he would be well within his right to bar Canadians, provided that he doesn’t allow white protestants on the one hand while barring Muslims or darker-complected people on the other. That’s the part you’re overlooking – I absolutely agree that the president has broad power to be selective in who gets admitted to the US, provided that he follows a Constitutionally-supported process for doing so. Barring travelers from states hostile to the US is perfectly legal, but discriminating on the basis of race or religion is not.
FWIW, I think much of the executive order will generally be regarded as within the presidential prerogatives and consistent with immigration law, and thus legal. It’s not like Courts are saying the entire language of the order is invalid.
If we were at war with Canada, then there would be a clear, secular reason fro barring Canadians from the US. The judge here is saying he doesn’t see a secular reason for the ban. I think he’s wrong, but the analogy to war time doesn’t really fly.