jews d

JANE GAZMAN

in
the

Expert Opinions

Immigration lawyers weigh in on Trump’s executive order.

LOUIS FINKELMAN
CONTRIBUTING WRITER

ABOVE: Detroit Metro
Airport immigration pro-
test, Jan. 29, 2017.

Bradley Maze

O

Kary Moss

n Jan. 27, President
Donald Trump issued an
executive order imposing
temporary limitations on immi-
gration to the United States.
Trump suspended visas for peo-
ple from seven predominantly
Muslim countries, and generally
suspended applications for refu-
gee status.
Washington State Judge
James Robart overturned the
executive order on Friday, Feb.
3, and his ruling was made
effective immediately. Customs
and Border Protection began
reinstating visas to the approxi-

Ellie Mosko

Peter Antone

mately 60,000 people affected
by the travel ban.
The U.S. Justice Department
filed a formal notice of app-
eal Saturday afternoon, on
President Trump’s behalf, seek-
ing to overturn Robart’s order.
The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals declined to overturn
Robart’s decision immediately.
The court gave the govern-
ment until 6 p.m. Monday, Feb.
6, (JN's press time) to submit
briefs for consideration.
No matter what the decision,
the case is expected to go to
the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Pitt

Trump’s executive order
made an exception for individ-
uals of minority religions who
face “religion-based persecu-
tion” in predominantly Muslim
countries — a provision widely
understood to mean that
Christian refugees would be
welcome.
Some lawyers in the Detroit
area who work to protect the
rights of asylum seekers and
other immigrants responded to
the executive order.
Bradley Maze, a lawyer at
George P. Mann and Associates
in Farmington Hills, and Ellie

Mosko, an immigration attorney
in solo practice, went to the
airport to stand ready to assist
any immigrants who might need
legal assistance. Other local law-
yers showed up at border cross-
ings with Canada.
The ACLU challenged the
executive order in courts
across the nation. Kary Moss,
executive director of the ACLU
of Michigan, expressed optimism
about these challenges.
“The executive order violates
the First Amendment, which
prohibits the government from
preferring or disfavoring any reli-
gion, and the 14th Amendment,
which guarantees that everyone
is entitled to equal protection
under the law,” she says.
Other attorneys were more
cautious. Mosko says, “The
executive order raises possible
serious constitutional violations
in both content and implemen-
tation. Ultimately, many of these
questions are likely to go to the
Supreme Court.”
Peter Antone of the immi-
gration law firm of Antone,
Casagrande & Adwers in
Farmington Hills, thinks the
order may withstand judicial
scrutiny.
“Our constitutional scheme,”
he says, “gives the president
broad powers when it comes
to citing national security as a
basis for regulating the admis-
sion of foreign nationals to this
country.”
Commenting on the implicit
preference for Christian immi-
grants, Jeffrey Pitt of Antone,
Casagrande and Adwers, says,
“We recognize the targeted per-
secution of Christians in certain
countries. However, the prioritiz-
ing of legitimate refugees based
on a religious test is most con-
cerning.”
Mosko says, “Christians are
not the only minority. How will
this order apply to minority
Sunni, Shia and Kurds where
they are minorities who fear
persecution? Will they be consid-
ered religious minorities or will
they be lumped into the larger
religious category of ‘Muslim’?

continued on page 14

12

February 9 • 2017

jn

