WAIMEA — When President Donald Trump rolled out a second executive order aimed at limiting the travel and immigration of citizens and refugees from six majority-Muslim countries into the United States, Hawaii charged out of the gate intent on being the first to stop him.
WAIMEA — When President Donald Trump rolled out a second executive order aimed at limiting the travel and immigration of citizens and refugees from six majority-Muslim countries into the United States, Hawaii charged out of the gate intent on being the first to stop him.
On Thursday, at a community meeting in Waimea, one month to the day after the president issued his revised travel ban, Hawaii State Attorney General Doug Chin explained why.
“On this issue, on immigration, I feel like we have a story to tell. I feel like we have something to say that is different and unique and special to Hawaii,” said Chin, adding other states’ arguments focus solely on the adverse economic impact of the order. “To me, there’s so much that is deeper than that. It’s not just the money. It’s not just the tourism dollars or the college education dollars. It’s the assault on our culture. It’s the assault on just kind of the values that Hawaii really stands for.”
Chin noted Hawaii is the most ethnically diverse state in the nation and that of its roughly 1.5 million residents, 250,000 are foreign born while 100,000 are not U.S. citizens. He also referenced the state’s workforce, 20 percent of which is made up of foreign-born residents. He added that 22 percent of business owners in the state were also born outside of the country.
He spoke of Hawaii’s 12,000 foreign-born college students, who represent $43 million in annual tax revenue and contribute $400 million to the state’s economy on a yearly basis.
An added element of the urgency to protect these residents, Chin said, is that when examined in detail, Trump’s executive order is neither as benign nor temporary as the administration has tried to frame it. Instead, it’s potentially much more than a strategy to buy time and shift policy to make the country safer.
The language of the ban, Chin explained, gives the administration authority to not only extend the suspension of visas and the admittance of refugees indefinitely, if it so chooses, but also to add other countries to the list of those banned.
While Chin was greeted by a standing ovation from attendees inside the Waimea School Cafeteria where the meeting was held, another faction on the curb outside the school — armed with signage supporting Trump and his travel ban — questioned the attorney general’s motives.
“I believe that Chin has chosen to file what amounts to a frivolous lawsuit,” said Patrick Henry, his right hand grasping an American flag. “I believe that he does not have legal rights to challenge an executive order by the president of the United States on any grounds, and that the purpose of his frivolous lawsuit is to advance a potential future political career he has in mind.”
The country’s judiciary appears to hold a conflicting view. Washington state successfully stopped Trump’s first immigration order and Hawaii’s endeavor to do the same with draft No. 2 has proven fruitful, at least so far.
Hawaii Federal District Court Judge Derrick Watson granted the state a temporary restraining order on March 15, effectively halting the travel ban in its entirety on the same day a fellow federal judge in Maryland ruled against a portion of the ban.
Watson’s decision was based on findings that the order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
He cited a “discriminatory intent” behind the order, which was revised and reworded to remove travel restrictions on current visa holders and scrap a provision creating a more favorable entry process for religious minorities from banned countries — essentially any non-Muslims, namely Christians.
Chin said beyond economic and cultural damages the order would impose upon Hawaii, Watson’s decision relied on statements made by Trump both during his campaign and after his election that rendered a discriminatory intent evident.
He referenced Trump’s assertion during the campaign that if Democratic Party challenger Hillary Clinton were elected, the children of Muslim refugees she’d allow inside U.S. borders would convert American-born children to ISIS.
Chin also noted language that was still on Trump’s campaign website as of Thursday morning that read “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Such language has prompted Chin and others to refer to the travel ban as a “Muslim ban,” despite ardent protests from the president and his surrogates that it is no such thing. Hawaii’s attorney general added that the more neutral language of the revised ban can rightly be interpreted as subterfuge to disguise its true purpose.
“If (those aren’t) words that put discriminatory intent behind neutral words in a document, then I don’t know what is,” Chin said.
On March 29, Watson granted Hawaii a preliminary injunction, which the U.S. Department of Justice has appealed to the 9th Circuit. It is the same appellate court that struck down the federal government’s appeal of Judge James Robart’s decision that stopped the initial travel ban.
Several judges serve on the 9th Circuit, however, and the three-judge panel set to hear arguments May 15 in Seattle may be partially or entirely comprised of different judges.
While the federal government chose not to appeal the 9th Circuit’s ruling on the first travel ban, Chin said he fully expects this case to end up in front of the Supreme Court regardless of the decision rendered on the appeal next month.
But it won’t be Chin arguing the case to the highest court in the land. Instead, his office has sought special counsel to present on Hawaii’s behalf, something he said is not uncommon.
Henry and the group of travel ban supporters outside the school took issue with that as well, calling the decision to spend the state’s limited resources on the legal proceedings irresponsible.
Chin said the cost of employing outside counsel amounts to $150,000 total, a steep discount from what the firm he’s hired would normally be paid.
During the question-and-answer period to finish Chin’s presentation, an inquiry was raised about possible retribution on behalf of the federal government in retaliation to Hawaii’s legal action.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has declared publicly that any sanctuary city or state — those that willfully choose not to comply with federal directives on immigration — will not receive federal funding. In Hawaii, that could mean losing out on more than 20 percent of the state’s budget, or roughly $1.5 billion.
One exception to that declaration are funds for law enforcement activities Sessions and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security deem necessary. Chin said another exception in effect, at least for now, is money for ongoing infrastructure projects, such as the rail system on Oahu.
Chin said threats such as those leveled by Sessions at cities and states that won’t comply are worrisome but can also be legally challenged under the 11th amendment and a legal theory called “commandeering.”
“There’s a legitimate argument to say the federal government can’t do that,” Chin said.
The majority in attendance supported the lawsuit. Pablo Beimler, 28, was among them.
“I agree with (the action against the ban), and I would say I’m very proud of it,” he said. “I’m proud to say we live in the state that took Donald Trump head on. And not just him, but kind of the core set of values he represents that to me are inherently insensitive and un-American.”