The states that opposed Donald Trump’s contentious travel ban claimed immigration benefits them and they would face deprivation if the ban was imposed.
In January, Trump issued an immigration executive order. It banned refugees from arriving in the United States for 120 days. The order would keep out arrivals from seven predominantly Muslim nations for three months. The countries in question were Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. The ban on Syrians was meant to be an indefinite one.
The executive order sparked protests and confusion. It also led to a flurry of legal hearings as the ban was suspended. In March, a revised ban removed Iraq from the list. It also removed the indefinite ban on Syrians.
James Robart, a U.S. District Judge in Seattle, issued the broadest ruling against the ban. Trump later criticized Robart in tweets
Robart considered the lawsuit brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota.
Lawyers for the states said they were acting in their role of parens patriae of the residents within their borders. In other words, the states were giving themselves the power to act on behalf of people who could not act on their own behalf.
Robart’s decision temporary stayed key portions of the executive order related to terrorism. The judge agreed that the order would be detrimental to the states that would experience “immediate and irreparable injury” as a result of the orders.
Judge Said Immigration Benefits Washington State
Robart said the states would lose out from the orders in areas like education, employment, commerce, relations with families and the freedom to travel.
Last year, when Texas led the lawsuit against former President Obama’s executive order to reform immigration, the state’s lawyers tried to prove that allowing more undocumented immigrants to remain and work would hike up the costs of driving licenses.
Robart said Trump’s executive order would impact the missions and operations of educational establishments that would lose students and income. Washington and Minnesota were losing key immigration benefits, according to his rationale.
The judge temporarily blocked aspects of the executive order nationwide pending a decision on the merits of the lawsuit. Days later three judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals in San Francisco upheld Robart’s ruling.
There is a lack of consensus about immigration benefits and immigration remains a polarizing issue. Studies referred to by the George W Bush Institute suggest immigrants fuel economic activity. They cause a phenomenon dubbed the “immigration surplus.”
At Peek & Toland , we recognize the benefits of immigrants and can help you assess your immigration options in the United States. Please contact us for a consultation at (512) 474-4445.