More first amendment challenges are expected regarding Trump's new orders; American analyst tells ILNA

Professor "Jason Casellas" is a specialist in American politics, with specific research and teaching interests in Latino politics, legislative politics, and state and local politics.

He talked with ILNA regarding new Trump's immigration orders and the way the American judicial system might react.

ILNA: Why do you think, Iraq has been exempted from Trump’s new immigration orders?

Well, I think this is part of the discussion with members of congress and others in dealing with our relationship with Iraq. I think there has been a lot of concern about excluding people from Iraq for a variety of reasons. I’m not an expert in foreign policy, but I think in terms of immigration, one of the bigger issues to deal with, now, is the situation with Mexico and illegal immigration from Mexico.

ILNA: How do you see the influence that these orders might have on the image of the US nationally and internationally?

I think president, during the election ran the campaign of keeping terrorists out of the US, using the term Muslims. I think he’s trying to keep that promise. Of course the first round of executive orders wasn’t quite agreed by a lot of people in the department of Homeland Security and the department of Justice, so it took more time to come up with the orders that they think will be upheld by judges in the court. It remains to be seen whether that is going to happen, because there are several lawsuits that already have been filed in certain states challenging the new orders as well.

ILNA: As judicial officials like Washington Attorney General and Hawaii Attorney have claimed that are reviewing the orders and are going to react, in what ways the row might proceed?

I think it’s going to be controversial. It’s going to be something that creates a lot of descent. Certainly in the US, we’ve already seen that sort of protests early on, when the first executive orders happened. So I suspect, there would be more protest in the US. In particular, more people standing with refugees. Certainly, in a lot of cities, we’ve seen people oppose to the new orders as they see it as unconstitutionally banning people from entering the US based on their religion, Islam. I think there’s no question that most Americans want to keep terrorists out, but the issue is whether this is the best way to do that.

ILNA: How do you think the legal system as a whole might react to these orders?

We’ll see some first amendment challenges. Challenges that might present the issue of religious discrimination or discrimination based on their religions. The administration can argue that it’s more about the country than the religion. So I think showing challenges in courts by the administration’s argument that the issue is more about the country than about the religions, regarding refusing entry from individuals, is probable. Obviously the new orders exempt people with green cards and the permanently residents of the United States and that was one of the problems of the original orders. This is because of the new due process, of the cause of the constitution that allows legal residence, due process, rather than kind of indiscriminate banning from the United States.

END