Skip to main content

JACL Continues Opposition to Newly Issued Immigration Ban

By October 6, 2017January 17th, 2020No Comments

The JACL continues to oppose the Muslim country travel ban. The addition of three more nations to the Muslim country ban list does not alter the inherent flaws of the original order seeking to ban individuals based upon the majority religion of their country of origin.

In fact, one of the countries added, Chad, is yet one more country with a majority Muslim population; and the other two new restricted countries account for a negligible volume of immigration to the United States. Their addition does not disguise the true nature of the anti-Muslim order.

As JACL has stated in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court (, the foundations for this travel ban are weak at best, just like the case for mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Executive Order No. 13780 (the “Travel Ban Order”) — and the flimsy, illogical and trumped up national security rationale upon which it rests — is such a repetition.

Once again, the government insists that this Court must accept its talismanic incantation of “national security” and shirk its core responsibility to take a hard look at arbitrary, discriminatory and harmful treatment of a disfavored group.

We call upon the courts to fulfill their role in properly reviewing this executive order and the subsequent order on Sunday for the discriminatory foundations upon which they appear to be based and address the authority of this administration to create new immigration law outside of Congressional action.

Justice Jackson compared the Court’s opinion in Korematsu to “a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.” Korematsu, 323 U.S. at 246 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Engaging in a meaningful assessment of the basis for executive action is the most effective way to place a trigger-lock on that gun. Rather than repeat the tragic errors of World War II, this Court should affirm the decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.

— JACL National