Page 8A
NATION/WORLD
East Oregonian
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Dems warn against funding
border wall in spending bill
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
—
Top Senate Democrats
are warning Republicans
controlling Congress against
adding billions of dollars for
President Donald Trump’s
U.S.-Mexico border wall
to a coming $1 trillion-plus
spending package.
The
warning
from
Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer and others
came in a letter Monday
to Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell of Kentucky.
The letter also warns against
adding other “poison pills”
such as provisions to roll
back environmental or
consumer protections and
urges additional money for
domestic programs to match
the administration’s planned
Pentagon increases.
“We believe it would be
inappropriate to insist on the
inclusion of (wall) funding
in a must-pass appropria-
tions bill that is needed for
the Republican majority in
control of the Congress to
avert a government shutdown
so early in President Trump’s
administration,” said the
letter, which was provided
to The Associated Press.
Trump’s proposal for the
wall was a centerpiece of his
presidential campaign and he
claimed he could persuade
Mexico to pay for it.
The letter from Demo-
crats implicitly threatens a
filibuster showdown — and
potential
government
shutdown — if Republicans
try to attach controversial
Trump agenda items to the
must-do legislation.
At issue is a huge package
of leftover spending bills for
the budget year that began in
October. Congress faces an
April 28 deadline to complete
AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, file
In this March 9 photo, Washington State Attorney
General Bob Ferguson speaks at a news conference
about the state’s response to President Trump’s re-
vised travel ban in Seattle.
States aiming to
block travel ban
from taking effect
By CHRIS GRYGIEL
Associated Press
AP Photo/Christian Torres, File
In this Nov. 10, 2016 file photo, workers continue work raising a taller fence in the
Mexico-US border area separating the towns of Anapra, Mexico and Sunland Park,
N.M. U.S.
the measure and avert a
partial government shutdown.
It’s separate from Trump’s
coming partial budget submis-
sion for the 2018 budget
year that begins on Oct. 1.
That proposal is expected on
Thursday and itself is sure to
roil Washington.
The funding issue will
be difficult to solve — with
the potential government
shutdown increasing the
political pressure — and
would require a capacity for
bipartisan compromise that
hasn’t been on display yet in
the Trump era.
Schumer voted to autho-
rize the existing border
fence a decade ago during
the Bush administration and
voted for legislation funding
its construction. The letter
says it’s premature to rush
Trump’s upgrades through.
“The Administration, put
simply, has no plan,” the
letter says.
While the letter says it
would be “inappropriate” to
include money for the border
wall, it says Democrats would
“strongly oppose” other
provisions, including moves
against Wall Street regulations
or even an attempt to “defund”
Planned Parenthood. Schumer
demurred when asked last
week whether he would lead
a filibuster over money for
the wall, but Monday’s letter
appears intended to show
that Democrats are unified
against the idea. Trump also
is preparing a request for
additional border control and
immigration agents.
“All 12 appropriations
bills should be completed
and they should not include
poison pill riders such
as those that roll back
protections for our veterans,
environment,
consumers
and workers and prohibit
funds for critical health care
services for women through
Planned Parenthood,” the
letter says. “We strongly
oppose the inclusion of such
riders in any of the must-pass
appropriations bills that fund
the government.”
Democrats’ votes are
needed to pass the measure
through the Senate. But talks
have barely begun, and the
undermanned Trump admin-
istration has yet to weigh in
with its expected request
for money for the wall and
Pentagon buildup.
Money for Trump’s border
wall is just the beginning of the
political complications facing
the measure, which would
advance as Republicans and
Trump are grappling with their
controversial health care law
repeal. It could be difficult to
avert a clash between Trump
and Schumer, and tea party
GOP forces are sure to be
upset with whatever outcome
Democrats eventually agree to
get behind.
Few clues on how a Gorsuch would vote on immigration
By HOLBROOK MOHR
and SUDHIN THANAWALA
Associated Press
If Neil Gorsuch wins
confirmation to the Supreme
Court, he could cast the
deciding vote on President
Donald Trump’s travel ban
against immigrants from
certain countries. But it’s far
from certain how he would
vote.
According to an Associated
Press review of Gorsuch’s
rulings, he has not written
extensively about immigra-
tion policy during a decade on
the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. And the few rulings
he has been involved in do not
reveal how he might decide
if given the opportunity to
consider an immigration ban.
Many of the cases involved
people challenging their prison
sentences for returning to the
U.S. illegally after having
been deported. He has often
been deferential to immigra-
tion authorities, but has also
sided with immigrants.
“His record on immi-
gration is a mixed bag, so
it’s hard to predict how he
would rule on any challenge
to the executive order,” says
Melissa Crow, legal director
for the American Immigration
Council, which challenged
Trump’s original ban.
That order, which would
have banned, people from
seven majority Muslim
counties, was put on hold last
month by a federal appeals
court, but Trump signed a new
version March 6. That one
removed Iraq from the list and
eliminated a provision to give
priority to religious minorities
in allowing immigrants in.
The new order is to take
effect Thursday, pending the
outcome of legal challenges.
It would not affect current
visa holders but would bar
new visas for people from
Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan,
Yemen and Libya. And it
would temporarily shut down
the U.S. refugee program.
There have been eight
justices on the court since
the death of Justice Antonin
Scalia last year. So for now
there’s the possibility of a tie
vote, which means the lower
court ruling would stand.
If Gorsuch makes the ninth
vote, which way would he go?
While his rulings on
major immigration policy are
limited, they do offer insight
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
In this Feb. 6 photo, Supreme Court Justice nominee
Neil Gorsuch, escorted by former New Hampshire
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, arrives for meeting on Capitol Hill in
Washington.
into his thinking.
In a 2013 case, he wrote,
“No doubt, we can and will
strike down regulations that
defy Congress’ statutes or the
Constitution’s
guarantees.
We do not, however, amend,
revise or undo administrative
regulations just because they
may not be to a litigant’s
liking or our own.”
“Unless some violation of
law is involved, the business
of deciding the sometimes
hard, often fine and nearly
always contestable questions
of immigration policy belongs
to the legislature and execu-
tive, not the courts.”
Michael Dorf, a constitu-
tional law professor at Cornell
University, says Gorsuch’s
sympathy for people in
religious cases, a general
skepticism of executive power
and a history of ruling for
immigrants give some reason
to think he could be sympa-
thetic to plaintiffs challenging
a ban on people from certain
countries.
But, Dorf added, “At this
point it’s still sort of a guessing
game.”
Gorsuch
has
shown
sympathy
for
religious
freedom, notably siding with
employers who objected
to providing employees
coverage for contraceptives.
He also found it was wrong
for a Wyoming prison to
deny use of an existing prison
sweat lodge to an inmate who
wanted to use it to exercise
his Native American religious
beliefs. But it’s not clear how
those considerations would
factor into a ban on people
from majority Muslim coun-
tries.
In
one
immigration
case, Gorsuch sided with a
Somalian convicted of lying
under oath during grand
jury questioning about his
asylum application, saying
the immigrant should have
been provided an interpreter.
In another case, he was part of
a decision that found the court
lacked jurisdiction to consider
an appeal from Mexican
immigrants who argued
deportation would create
an undue hardship because
their teenage kids were U.S.
citizens.
In one of Gorsuch’s most
noted immigration cases,
he sided with an immigrant
over the application of a law
requiring some people who
enter the country illegally to
wait 10 years outside the U.S.
before they can obtain legal
residency.
In response to a Senate
questionnaire that is part of
the confirmation process,
Gorsuch put that 2016 case
at the top of a list of his most
important rulings, saying it
dealt with conflicting provi-
sions in immigration law. One
provision gave the attorney
general power to grant resi-
dency to people who enter
the country illegally, while
another required the 10-year
waiting period.
An appeals court had said
the first provision trumped,
allowing immigrants to
apply to the attorney general
to stay. But an immigration
board said the 10-year rule
took precedence. Gorsuch
objected to the immigration
board applying the 10-year
rule for a man who applied for
residency when the appeals
court decision still stood.
In a concurring opinion,
however, Gorsuch took aim
at the longstanding Chevron
doctrine, which gives defer-
ence to federal agencies’
interpretations of ambiguous
statutes, calling it “an elephant
in the room.”
He wrote that the doctrine
and another ruling, often
referred to as Brand X, allow
“executive bureaucracies to
swallow huge amounts of core
judicial and legislative power
and concentrate federal power
in a way that seems more
than a little difficult to square
with the Constitution of the
framers’ design.”
SEATTLE — More than
a half-dozen states trying
to block President Donald
Trump’s revised travel ban
moved forward Monday
with a pair of lawsuits while
the government asked that
the order be allowed to take
effect this week.
Washington
state
Attorney General Bob
Ferguson, joined in his
lawsuit by heavily Demo-
cratic California, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York
and Oregon, asked for a
hearing with a federal judge
in Seattle before the admin-
istration plans to implement
the ban Thursday on new
visas for people from six
predominantly
Muslim
nations.
A hearing in a separate
lawsuit by Hawaii already
has been scheduled for
Wednesday.
Ferguson said the revised
ban is still unconstitutional
and harms residents, univer-
sities and businesses, espe-
cially tech companies such
as Washington state-based
Microsoft and Amazon who
rely on foreign workers.
“No one is above the
law, not even the president
— and I will hold him
accountable to the Consti-
tution,” Ferguson said in a
statement. “Cutting some
illegal aspects of President
Trump’s original travel ban
does not cure his affront to
our Constitution.”
Ferguson filed new court
documents after the judge
who put Trump’s original
order on hold said last week
he would not immediately
rule on whether his decision
applies to the new version.
U.S. District Judge James
Robart told the federal
government to quickly
respond to Ferguson’s claims
but said he would not hold a
hearing before Wednesday.
California
Attorney
General Xavier Becerra
announced
the
most
populous U.S. state was
joining Washington state’s
challenge, saying the order,
despite its changes, is an
attack on people based on
their religion or national
origin.
In Hawaii, which is
alone in its lawsuit, the U.S.
government asked a federal
court Monday to deny the
state’s request to temporarily
block the ban from going
into effect.
“No one is
above the law,
not even the
president — and
I will hold him
accountable to
the Constitution.”
— Bob Ferguson,
Washington state
attorney general
A judge will hear argu-
ments Wednesday, with the
heavily Democratic state
claiming the new order will
harm its Muslim population,
tourism and foreign students.
Ismail Elshikh, a plaintiff in
Hawaii’s challenge, said the
ban will prevent his Syrian
mother-in-law from visiting.
The government says
Hawaii’s allegations that the
ban will negatively affect
tourism and universities are
pure speculation. It also says
neither Elshikh nor his moth-
er-in-law have been harmed
because she has not been
denied a waiver for a visa to
visit the United States.
Trump’s revised ban
applies to Somalia, Iran,
Syria, Sudan, Libya and
Yemen and temporarily
shuts down the U.S. refugee
program. Unlike the original
order, it says people with
visas won’t be affected
and removes language that
would give priority to reli-
gious minorities.
Ferguson acknowledged
the changes to the order but
said it still “bars entry for
virtually all other individuals
from the listed countries,”
including relatives of U.S.
citizens and students who
have been admitted to state
universities and people who
might seek work at schools
and businesses.
“This court’s original
injunction protected these
individuals and institutions,”
Washington state’s new
court filing said.
It said the federal govern-
ment can’t enforce the new
travel ban unless it asks
Judge Robart to modify his
original restraining order.
“Until they do so, they
cannot escape the injunction
and continue their illegal
conduct,” the filing said.
White House spokesman
Sean Spicer said last week
that the administration
believes the revised travel
ban will stand up to legal
scrutiny.
March 4-5-6, 2016 | Spokane Fair & Expo Center | Spokane, WA
March 17-18-19, 2017
OVER 150 NORTHWEST ARTISANS
FINE ART | HAND CRAFT | SPECIALTY FOODS
TRAC Center
Pasco, WA
FREE PARKING
March 17th, St. Patricks Day • 7:00pm
541-276-6111
Red Lion Lounge • 304 SE Nye, Pendleton
CusterShows.com
Friday
10 AM —8 PM
Saturday 10 AM —6 PM
Sunday 10 AM —4 PM