The flimsy nature of Donald Trump's "national security" pretext for banning almost 200 million people from seven Muslim countries without any showing that there is in fact reason to believe that any of them are dangerous is apparent from a declaration, filed by a number of former national security officials with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, condemning the executive order as potentially doing "long term damage" to national security.

The signers include two former Secretaries of State, Madeline Allbright and John Kerry. For a link to the full statement, as well as extracts from many other similar ones by experts and business leaders, see:

Among other things, the lack of any real substance to Trump's national security claim in the executive order may make it even more likely that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could uphold the District Court's stay against enforcing the executive order.

This is under the doctrine enunciated in Kleindienst v Mandel (S. Ct 1972) and again in Kerry v. Din (S. Ct. 2015) that if denial of a visa or entry to a foreign citizen would infringe the Constitutional rights of a US citizen or citizens, the courts have the power to look into the reasons for denial to see if they are genuine and in good faith on their face.

As shown in my discussion of those decisions in an upcoming comment, this is not a very high standard. But it is one which, arguably, Trump's Muslim ban would have a very hard time meeting, on the basis of the above expert statements filed with the 9th Circuit.

I will discuss this issue in more detail in a future comment.

However, there is another issue raised by Trump's January 27 executive order which goes beyond the question whether barring up to 200 million people from the United States because of their religion, using "Trumped-up" national security grounds as an excuse, can be justified under our laws and Constitution.

This issue is whether Trump's Muslim immigrant ban is merely a first step to shutting down America's legal immigration system, or at least a major part of it.

The Hill reports on February 7 that two Republican Senators, Tom Cotton (Ark.) and David Perdue (Ga.) are introducing legislation which would cut the number of green cards each year in half, from 1,000,000 to 500,000, mainly by eliminating a number of family preference green card categories, as well as the diversity green card. Both of these visa types have enabled immigrants from every part of the world, not just Europe, to come to the US.

The pretext, typical of restrictionist rhetoric used by immigration opponents such as Senator Jeff Sessions, not to mention Trump himself in his August 31, 2016 Phoenix immigration speech, is that America should return to "historical" levels of immigration.

The unstated, but clear message, is, without any serious doubt, that America should also to return to the "historical" skin color of its immigrants - at least before 1965. See:

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law