'Justice'

FAQ on Executive Order

Posted on 21. Jun, 2017 by .

0

Frequently Asked Questions on Executive Order 13780 Related to Refugee Resettlement and Travel Ban

What is the current impact of the Maryland and the Hawaii federal court cases on the refugee resettlement Executive Order (EO) 13780?
The Executive Order (EO) 13780 continues to be partially halted by preliminary injunctions in these two federal court cases.
  • Hawaii: The Hawaii federal district court issued a preliminary injunction halting the national implementation of EO 13780 Sections 2 and 6, (the sections about the 90-day travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries, and about the 120-day halt to refugee admissions, the reduction of refugee admissions to 50,000 for the year, and the consideration of state involvement in refugee resettlement). The Administration appealed the Hawaii case to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit). On June 12th, the 9th Circuit issued an opinion partially affirming the preliminary injunction. As a result, the nationwide injunction still applies Section 2(c), Section 6(a), and Section 6(b), dealing with the 90-day travel ban, the 120-day halt to refugee admissions, and the reduction of refugee admissions, respectively. The 9th Circuit allowed certain provisions of the Executive Order to be implemented, namely Section 6(d) which calls for the Secretary of State to review the existing law to see how state and local jurisdictions can have greater involvement in determining refugee placement.
  • Maryland: The Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction halting the implementation nationwide of EO 13780 Section 2(c), that is, only the section regarding the 90-day travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries. The Administration appealed the Maryland case to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Circuit). The 4th Circuit handed down a decision on May 25th to uphold the validity of the preliminary injunction of the Maryland federal court halting Section 2(c) of EO 13780.
What are the next steps in these Maryland and Hawaii federal legal cases?
On June 1, 2017, the Administration appealed the 4th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Administration asked the Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. Although the Supreme Court has not yet decided to take the case, petitioners IRAP and HIAS filed their response to the appeal and stay on June 12th. The U.S. Supreme Court could decide sometime after the June 12th response whether to hear the case and grant the requested stay pending the appeal. If the Administration seeks to appeal the 9th Circuit decision – which is anticipated – it is highly possible that the Supreme Court will hear both the 4th Circuit and 9th Circuit appeals together, since they relate to the same Executive Order.
What issues are the courts reviewing?
Whether the cases are heard separately or not, the underlying facts and questions for both cases tie them together. These threshold questions include whether the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that:
  • The President did not properly invoke his delegated power under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to restrict entry of individuals and refugees. He failed to include proper findings that support the conclusion that entry of individuals from the six countries, entry of refugees for 120 days, and entry of refugees over the 50,000 cap would be harmful to the national interest.
  • There was an improper motivation in issuing the EO that violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. An interrelated issue concerns the extent of the Administration’s power when it comes to national security matters.
  • The President cannot lower the Presidential Determination (PD) in the middle of the year, per 8 U.S.C. § 1157. The law requires the President to set the PD before the start of each fiscal year, in consultation with Congress. It provides a manner in which to increase this number mid-year but not to lower the number. (This claim is only relevant to review of Section 6 in the 9th Circuit case).
What are the potential outcomes of these cases?
  • If the Supreme Court continues to find the preliminary injunction(s) proper and it continues to halt EO 13780, it will likely send the case back to the federal district court(s) for final rulings about the legality and/or constitutionality of EO 13780. Refugees would continue to arrive, pending the final decision.
  • If the Supreme Court finds the preliminary injunction(s) improper and stays the injunction(s) and EO 13780 is allowed to be implemented in whole or part, it will likely send the case back to the federal court(s). Refugees will cease to arrive, during the implementation of the pause called for in the EO and pending the final rulings.
What could be the impact of these court cases on U.S. refugee admissions for FY2017 and FY2018?
  • If the EO continues to be halted by the Hawaii preliminary injunction, refugee arrivals in FY2017 are expected to reach an estimated 70,000 by the end of the year. There is funding for 75,000-85,000 refugees authorized by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017.
  • If the preliminary injunction is stayed and the EO is implemented in June and completed by the end of September 2017, the refugee arrivals for FY2017 are likely to be approximately whatever the totals are by that time (as of 5/18 they were 44,781) plus possibly some three weeks of refugee arrivals plus most vulnerable arrivals allowed during the 120-day review period. In other words, they are likely to be right around 50,000 refugees for FY2017. That total would be adjusted up or down depending on the EO restart date.
What could be the impact of these court cases on the Presidential Determination for FY2017 and FY2018?
Ordinarily, the President has great power over the annual Presidential Determination (PD) of the number of refugee admissions for a given year. However, for FY2017, the decision by the 9th Circuit has raised questions as to whether the President has the power to unilaterally decrease the PD mid-year. Some Administration officials have been saying for some time that EO 13780 is not meant to undermine resettlement itself, but to make sure it is done safely. If this is indeed the Administration’s view, then after the EO has run its course-either by being reinstated in FY2017 or by being found improper–a PD of 75,000 for FY2018 would be a good way to illustrate that there is no animus toward refugees.

More/Leave a Comment

Holy See denounces detention of migrant children

Posted on 21. Jun, 2017 by .

0

(Vatican Radio)  The Holy See has called on the international community to protect the rights of unaccompanied migrant children and condemned their detention as a “grave error”.REUTERS2095029_Articolo

The Vatican’s Permanent Observer to the UN in Geneva, Archbishop Ivan Jurkovič, made the remarks to the Human Rights Council panel discussion on the rights of unaccompanied migrant children and adolescents.

“The grave error of the detention model is that it considers the children as sole, isolated subjects responsible for the situations in which they find themselves and over which they have little, if any, control. This model wrongly absolves the international community at large from responsibilities that it regularly fails to fulfill,” Archbishop Jurkovič said.

He also appealed on behalf of the Holy See for the international community “to protect the dignity and fundamental rights of every person and to implement, without reserve, humanitarian law, principles and policies in response to people on the move, especially unaccompanied children: they must be considered children first and foremost, and their best interest must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them.”

Archbishop Jurkovič went on to denounce the detention of migrant children.

“Children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their own migration status or that of their parents. The practice of detaining migrant children should not be an option, and the best interests of the child should always prevail.”

Rather, he said, “The possibility of authentic integral human development should be guaranteed for all children.”

Read the full statement here

More/Leave a Comment

California Home to Large Human Trafficking Industry

Posted on 17. Jun, 2017 by .

0

Human trafficking is the world’s fastest growing criminal enterprise.  An estimated $32 billion-a-year global industry, it constitutes one of the gravest offenses against human dignity – preying upon the most vulnerable women, children, and men who are frequently tricked or coerced into preforming uncompensated work or degrading and dangerous activities.

As Pope Francis has written, “We must unite our efforts to free the victims and stop this increasingly aggressive crime.”

California is particularly vulnerable to this atrocity because of its proximity to international borders, its number of ports and airports, its significant immigrant population, and its large economy that includes industries that attract forced labor. It serves both as an entry point for slaves imported from outside the U.S. as well as a destination for slaves.

Visit USCCB’s Anti-trafficking resources page.

More/Leave a Comment

Budget Cuts harm Low Income People

Posted on 17. Jun, 2017 by .

0

A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that roughly three-fifths of the $4.3 trillion of non-defense cuts in President Trump’s proposed FY18 budget come from programs assisting low- and moderate-income people. These programs, which help individuals and families, seniors, and children, account for just 29 percent of non-defense spending and just 24 percent of total program spending. Yet President Trump’s budget would get 59 percent of its cuts from them.

In total, the Trump Administration’s budget would cut programs that help our neighbors afford basic living standards and improve their circumstances by $2.5 trillion over 10 years. According to CBPP.

President Trump’s budget would cut Medicaid by $1.6 trillion over 10 years, including cuts that result from repealing the Affordable Care Act, thereby reducing federal Medicaid spending by nearly half by 2027. The budget would also cut $193 billion (more than 25 percent) from SNAP/food stamps, leaving millions of low-income children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities to worry about having food on the table. Discretionary (annually appropriated) programs would be slashed by $4trump_li_cut_59_percent_30000 billion, eliminating housing vouchers for more than 250,000 struggling families and putting them at risk of homelessness, gutting job training programs, and ending help poor families need to heat and cool their homes. Spending on these non-defense discretionary programs in 2027 would fall to half of their 2010 levels under Trump’s plan. And let’s not forget that these “savings” are all so millionaires and big corporations can receive huge tax cuts; CBPP estimates that millionaires alone would receive tax cuts that could total more than $2 trillion over the next decade. Formore analyses on how harmful President Trump’s budget would be for America, see our FY18 budget resource page and this blog post.

read more here

More/Leave a Comment

WENDY’S SHAREHOLDER UPDATE

Posted on 17. Jun, 2017 by .

0

WENDY’S HEARD THE VOICE OF FARM WORKERS AND FAITH PARTNERS LOUD AND CLEAR AT THEIR RECENT SHAREHOLDER’S MEETING!

On May 23rd, 27 shareholders/proxies were credentialed to attend Wendy’s annual shareholder meeting in Dublin, OH.  Just one day before, NFWM declared a Day of Prayer and Action to invite supporters to offer prayers and good thoughts AND to call the CEO of Wendy’s, Todd Penegor, to let him know that we were standing with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) in their request for Wendy’s to sign the Fair Food Agreement.  For more background on the Wendy’s campaign, VISIT.

Inside the shareholder’s meeting, fourteen people were chosen to speak as shareholders or for proxies.  Among the speakers, the first identified as a proxy for Sam Trickey, long time board member and supporter of NFWM and the farm worker movement.  The second speaker was Lucas Benitez, co-founder of CIW.  Edie Rasell, former representative of the United Church of Christ to NFWM’s board until her retirement in late February, spoke on behalf of both the UCC and the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Michigan.

Although time ran out before being called on, Sr. Karen Bernhardt represented NFWM as well as her Order, the Sisters of the Humility of Mary.  To see Sr. Karen’s intended remarks, click here.  Since she did not get to speak, Sr. Karen sent her statement as a follow up letter to Mr. Penegor.  Kelly Litt, Justice Promoter for the Dominicans for Peace, one of NFWM’s Supporting Organizations, was also present and prepared to speak but was not chosen. Read more here.

 

More/Leave a Comment