The immigration policies of the President Trump travel ban has faced a pair of new challenges in court on Wednesday, as the Attorney General of Massachusetts has alleged that Mr. Trump had violated the Constitution with its Executive redrawn Order, Prohibiting the travel from six predominantly Muslim countries.
And in California, the Prosecutor of the city of San Francisco has asked a federal judge to issue an injunction blocking another executive order, which threatens to withdraw the funds for so-called sanctuary of cities that are not widely cooperate with the responsible for the application of the immigration of the federal government.
The two actions show how emboldened Mr. Trump’s opponents are to attack its policy in the middle of a trial, after a series of actions brought by the attorneys general of the States and the non-profit groups have derailed its first travel ban last month.
In the Wisconsin, the Attorney General of the State Chin, Doug, a Democrat, said in a legal deposit that Mr. Trump travel ban new command will damage the institutions of education of the state and private enterprises, including its lucrative tourism industry, and the discrimination against families with relatives abroad.
Read the result of the main story of
Judge blocks the order of asset on refugees in the chaos and in the whole world the auction JAN. 28, 2017
trump of nine blocks of travel ban of migrants of the Six Nations, sparing Iraq on 6 March 2017
Trump flip-flops on legal status for immigrants without papers 1 March 2017
hide the immigrants, fearing the capture on ‘any corner’ FEB. 22, 2017
How the asset “merit” of the immigration system could operate on 1 March 2017,
Mr Chin said in an interview that Mr. Trump despite of the changes made to its first executive order, the new s is high at the same policy “dressed differently.” He said Mr. Trump’s travel ban had aroused strong opposition in Hawaii, where the people still remember of federal policies focused as of Asian origin for the discrimination, the Chinese Exclusion Act for the internment of the Americans in the Second World War.
“This command recalls memories for many people here,” said Mr. Chin. “When you have an order or decision of the government that calls the people by their country of origin or by the religion, we have got to be a check against this.”
But it is not clear if the legal challenge can interrupt Mr. Trump’s executive action revised the manner in which the State of Washington, a collective dedicated its first version.
Among the other attorneys general democratic, it is to be feared that the new order can be pulled enough attention to survive to the review of a tribunal.
Several Attorney General of the States which has challenged Mr. Trump original of the travel ban, including New York, Massachusetts and Washington, have said that they are still in the process of studying the new to determine if they believe that it is constitutional.
Mr. Chin, 50 years, a career that s lawyer has been appointed to his position, rather than elected, has shown an appetite for Mr. Trump difficult in recent weeks. At a meeting between Mr. Trump and attorneys general of the States last week in Washington, Mr. Menton supported Mr. Trump to defend the thinking behind its attempts to suppress the ticket of the Middle East.
Mr. Trump has responded by asking if Mr. Chin was among the attorneys general who had continued on its travel ban, and then said that he was trying to “make the security of America”, according to Mr. Chin and two other people who were present at the meeting.
Mr. CHIN has stated that the President has also recognized the group that “many of us would not like the way in which he approached this.”
A spokesman for the White House has not responded to a request for comment on the Hawaii and San Francisco.
Even in the middle of the multiplication of judicial challenges to prevail on the policies of the administration, the two actions are distinguished by their aggressive approach. While many mayors have denounced Mr. Trump’s threat to withhold federal funds in hand.
“This action is designed to protect the residents and provide financial clarity,” Mr. Herrera has said in a statement.
Santa Clara County, California, has also asked for an injunction against Mr Trump on immigration execution order, for similar reasons.
Karen Tumlin, legal director of legislation on immigration center, that opposes Mr Trump the travel ban and its order on the city-shrine called the legal action on Wednesday to the Forerunner for other strong challenges in the coming days.
Ms. Tumlin said injunction requests in California were particularly important because it had not yet been reached a “significant” reproaches Mr Trump’s city shrine order in court, allowing an atmosphere of deep anxiety to take in the city and immigrant communities.
“We need clarity and pushed back on this executive order to tackle the problem,” he said.
Ms. Tumlin said there would probably be an “burst of court” of activity before Mr Trump’s new order takes effect the next week, not only from Hawaii.
So far, Hawaii is the only state to intervene against the new order and has preserved an external lawyer, Neal Katyal, a former agent solicitor general in the Obama administration.
Mr Chin has said that he has recognized that other Member States were still “think their approach to want to take”, but that he was comfortable being the first to move.
Unlike the prohibition of original, Mr. Trump’s new order retains the rights of traveling to different groups that typically receive greater consideration by the federal courts, as permanent residents and people with active visas. And no longer provides for special treatment for Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries affected by the ban.
James E. Tierney, a former attorney general of Maine that works a lot with the current state Advocates General, said more democrats were approaching Mr Trump’s new order with caution.
Mr Tierney, a Democrat, said state lawyers were “Searching for constitutionality” of the order before settling on a public course of action.
They firmly believe that only because he does not like something does not mean that it is unconstitutional,” Mr. Tierney said.
If the Hawaii lawsuit faces uncertain odds, you may still have the effect of putting pressure on other Member blue quote over Mr Trump’s order or to join groups for the defense of the rights which intend to file legal actions of their own.
In a wave of litigation against the first, abruptly issued order, a number of advocates general cited massive disruption caused for travelers with legal rights to enter the United States as well as the damage that could do for the state universities, public hospitals and other public entities-backed institutions.
But Mr Trump’s new order is more carefully tailored and Hawaii the process relies on a more limited of claims. It emphasizes the possibility that people with single use or expiration of visas may be blocked by travel and that legal residents of Hawaii could be inappropriately by sponsoring family members from abroad to join them in the United States.
The complaint – a revised version of the document Mr chin of the Office filed as a challenge to Mr Trump of first order – also cites comments last month by Stephen Miller, a senior aide to Mr Trump, describing any changes to the initial travel ban as the technical adjustments intended to preserve the same “base policy result.”
A federal judge has scheduled a hearing for 15 March to consider the Hawaii the request for a temporary block on Mr Trump’s order. The order is scheduled to enter into force on 16 March.