Press "Enter" to skip to content

International Students Affected by Unconstitutional Immigration Ban; Jackley Should Join WA/MN Lawsuit

By Cory Allen Heidelberger on 2017-02-11

A key part of the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the White House’s poorly written, poorly targeted, and poorly justified immigration ban is the legal standing plaintiff states Washington and Minnesota have due to the negative impact of the travel restrictions on students and faculty at their public university campuses. How prominent are foreign students at South Dakota’s campuses?

According to the Board of Regents’ enrollment figures, 1,769 international students are enrolled at our six public campuses. That’s 4.8% of total SDBOR enrollment. For comparison, 3.0% of the entire state’s population is foreign-born. Shortly after the White House issued the illegal order, Regents VP Academic Paul Turman said the Regents had identified 74 students and four faculty affected by the ban.

53.4% of those international students are at South Dakota State University. According to university president Barry Dunn, SDSU’s 943 international students come from 89 countries. 30 of those students, as well as two faculty members, are from the seven Muslim countries targeted by the White House’s unconstitutional immigration ban. “They have enriched the Brookings community,” says President Dunn, “certainly enriched our campus.” Dunn adds that many of his foreign students are “concerned that the ban might be extended to them someday with…just the stroke of a pen.”

Northern State University has 197 international students, just one of whom comes from one of the White House’s blacklisted countries. However, as at SDSU, NSU students from other largely Muslim countries— Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia—are understandably wondering if Trump is coming for them next:

Northern State University junior Nikita Nesterov is a little worried about his home country being added to the list.

“I’m really worried about it because my country is a Muslim country and I’m really worried that it’s going to be affected by these changes in the immigration process,” Nesterov said. “If something happens and my country would be on the list I will not be able to finish my degree” [Katherine Grandstrand, “NSU Watching Immigration Order’s Effect on International Students,” Aberdeen American News, 2017.01.31].

The School of Mines and Technology has eight students and two faculty from the targeted Muslim countries.

International enrollments at other campuses are 289 at USD, 173 at Mines, 110 at DSU, and 64 at BHSU.

Seventeen states have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in Washington & Minnesota vs. Trump et al. South Dakota is not yet among them. The immigration ban affects South Dakota campuses as surely as it affects campuses in Minnesota, Washington, and the seventeen states that are supporting their lawsuit. Our Attorney General, Marty Jackley should speak for our campuses and join the lawsuit over the Executive Branch’s unconstitutional overreach.

Published in South Dakota

38 Comments

  1. Rorschach 2017-02-11 10:23

    Fat chance any GOP Party governor candidate is going to stick up for innocent America-loving foreigners who aren’t Christian.

  2. Super Sweet 2017-02-11 10:37

    Proud to say I live in the Ninth Circuit. If we are a nation of laws and not of men, why should it matter if judges are appointed by Republican or Democrat presidents?

  4. Tim 2017-02-11 16:22

    This has nothing to do with dictating what bathroom a person uses, who is marrying who or killing unborn babies, Jackley won’t be interested.

  6. mike from iowa 2017-02-11 17:01

    1975-1995 US took in 2 million unvetted Vietnamese.
    !985 US took in 125000 unvetted Cubans in the Mariel boat lift
    2011-2016 US has taken in < 15000 super-vetted Syrians.

  7. mike from iowa 2017-02-11 17:35

    What happens if some of the students are deported. Do they get refunds or will that be considered a crime such as giving material aid to potential terrorists?

  9. Adam 2017-02-11 18:31

    I wish Trump was Governor of South Dakota!!!

    He would make sure that anyone who ain’t from here is EXTREMELY vetted in order to find out if they love South Dakota enough to live here. That would, truly, Make South Dakota Great Again.

  10. jerry 2017-02-11 19:07

    Jessica is a blogger. Check that flake out. She is like reading Deplorable, pretty much of a dud. If you even consider what this dumb bell wrote is that 72 “terrorists” became citizens since 2001. So in 16 years, this happened. Now, how did they become citizens given all of the Homeland Security that is required after the Homeland Security involved just to get a Green Card. Go pull somebody’s else’s leg Deplorable, mine are long enough. Your as bad as Evans and his nonsense. I will bet you are a young earther as well.

  11. jerry 2017-02-11 19:10

    Canada is now setting up British Columbia to be the new silicon valley for those who are having mixed feelings of coming to the US. Now we have Betsy Devos so you know there will be no brain drain because the brains will never be stimulated enough to do much of anything other than work on being house broken as the sign of super intelligence.

  12. jerry 2017-02-11 19:18

    We Americans need to wise up. Our healthcare is being jeopardized as well here. In South Dakota, we do have doctors as well as other very highly trained professionals that take care of our sorry arse’s here. Of course, when your heart gives out or you get in a life threatening situation, that very last thing you want is a professional surgeon working to save your life that might be.. gasp..Muslim. https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-trump-administration-clarify-immigration-executive-order

  13. happy camper 2017-02-11 19:49

    But Libbies, what about all the places we can’t go:

    “With all of the misinformation and confusion about the temporary travel ban, Americans should keep in mind that there are over three dozen countries they cannot visit safely, or ever.”

    Saudia Arabia: “Atheists: According to a recent law, atheism is a criminal act and is considered a ‘terrorist offense.’ Entry to atheists would be denied, with few exceptions.”

    • Algeria: Even with a certificate of accommodation from Algerian authorities and an invitation from a registered travel agency in Algeria, non-immigrant visas are rarely issued and entry is rarely permitted. Safety is also unlikely.

    • Iran: No American can travel to Iran independently. Even if through the sponsor/invitation/visa process, U.S. citizens with valid visas are regularly refused entry at the border with no explanation. There is no U.S. Embassy in Iran. (Even the U.S. Navy was unsafe in international waters despite the U.S. State Department illegally transferring more than $4 billion to Iran.)

    • Libya: It’s nearly impossible to obtain a visa, but plausible if a Libyan sponsor applies for the traveler in Libya first. Still, they might be denied. Safety is also unlikely, as it was for U.S. citizens killed on September 12, 2012.

    • Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia issues no tourist visas. No one can enter Saudi Arabia without a sponsor, an official invitation, oversight of a particular licensed agency, and approved accompaniment and itinerary. Violating/overstaying visa terms results in incarceration and hefty fines.

    • Somalia is the second least visited country on earth for a reason. Even with a sponsor, invitation letter, and paid protection from pirates, entry without being kidnapped is unlikely.

    • Turkey: Turkey claims to be a free country to which anyone can travel but the American most recently arrested and detained indefinitely in prison is Wheaton College graduate and missionary, Pastor Andrew Brunson, falsely charged with “membership in an armed terrorist organization.”

    http://www.newsmax.com/BethanyBlankley/trump-travel-ban-saudi-arabia-immigration/2017/02/10/id/773021/

  14. mike from iowa 2017-02-11 20:03

    SPLC doesn’t think much of the Center for Immigration Studies and Jessica Vaughan’s given name is Chicken ‘The Muslims Are Falling’ Little.

    https://www.splcenter.org/20090201/nativist-lobby-three-faces-intolerance

    Did you right wing piglets ever stop to think how many less of these terrorists there would have been if you hadn’t absolutely had to go and screw up the balance of power in the M.E. because dumbass dubya and Neocons just had to have a war? Pathetic.

  16. Porter Lansing 2017-02-11 20:15

    CampRat … I was pretty sure you are DuggarSD, but you’re way smarter than he. But, don’t be forlorn friend. We can put together enough signatures and letters here on the Free Press to get you into any of those places, on a one way ducket. Except Turkey. Turkey’s a great country. I have a family member who did an exchange student program in Turkey and her whole family of South Dakotans went over for the summer. Very safe and they love Americans.
    PS … You can take the Deplorables, too. Y’all don’t seem to enjoy USA much anymore.

  17. Mark Winegar 2017-02-11 20:27

    Interaction with foreign students, faculty, and others is key to understanding the people of other lands and leads to global peace. Banning them not in our best interests and will only lead to isolation, misunderstanding, and ultimately war. It is time for cooler heads.

  18. mike from iowa 2017-02-11 20:44

    Read today that Steve Bannon once worked for Citizens United. Terribly small right wing, innit?

  19. jerry 2017-02-11 21:06

    When I make pumpkin pie, I use Libbies, it is that good and pure.

  20. grudznick 2017-02-11 21:20

    Mr. Jerry, the libbies to whom I think Mr. camper is referring are those other libbies. You know the ones I mean, the ones in league with that Mr. Nelson and who are so far left they have joined forces with that Ms. May lady to attack all that is American and South Dakotan.

  21. bearcreekbat 2017-02-12 11:11

    I got a good laugh out of Greg’s link to the CIS piece. The writer stated:

    The information in this report was compiled by Senate staff from open sources, and certainly could have been found by the judges if they or their clerks had looked for it.

    I wonder why Trump’s lawyers could not find this information when asked by both the district court and the court of appeals. Given the fact that apparently CIS fully supports Trump’s ban and claims it is lawful (with no mention of the Constitution of course), CIS would have made such important information available to the Trump legal team so they could pass it on to the courts.

    It stands to reason that when the district court and the court of appeals asked the Trump lawyers for evidence related to the banned countries and domestic terrorism the Trump legal team looked at this CIS information to determine whether it was credible evidence. Perhaps their decision not to present the CIS claim to the courts had something to do with the danger of being disbarred if caught making misleading or false statements to the judiciary?

  22. mike from iowa 2017-02-12 13:30

    bcb- I got an OT ? since you are as close to a lawyer as I can find around here. Has to do with music and published lyrics. If interested you can get my email address from Master Cory. Either way, thanks.

  23. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-02-12 15:19

    Hap, modeling America’s policies on Somalia’s and Libya’s is one more way to boost ISIS.

  24. Chip 2017-02-12 16:28

    Speaking of deplorable Greg, where did you find such a wonderful source??

  25. mike from iowa 2017-02-12 16:33

    Chip- standard rule of thumb for this page. If the posters are considered to be hostile or trolls, they draw links strictly from right wing extremist sites.

    I think there is a catalog of sites listed for these people to get their talking points from. You could almost make book on that.

  26. bearcreekbat 2017-02-12 17:10

    mfi, I can’t provide you with any legal advice on a specific case. But if you just want to explore a general legal topic by email I would be happy to consider problems and share whatever knowledge I might have on the topic. Feel free to drop me a line anytime.

    Cory, can you please provide mfi my email address – thanks!

  27. mike from iowa 2017-02-12 17:28

    Thanks, bcb. I am not after legal advice. It is another matter about music. I will explain by email.

  28. Don Coyote 2017-02-12 17:32

    @Super Sweet: ” If we are a nation of laws and not of men, why should it matter if judges are appointed by Republican or Democrat presidents”

    If we are a “nation of laws” then why didn’t the Ninth Cicuit bother to cite the governing statute? In the entire 29 page opinion, the court fails to cite this statute. Why?

    “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

  30. mike from iowa 2017-02-12 17:54

    If we are a nation of laws, why haven’t wingnuts impeached Drumpf for disparaging the judicial system and individual judges? How about violating the emoluments clause? How about lying his ass off? Isn’t that what got Clinton impeached-lying?

  32. mike from iowa 2017-02-12 18:50

    John Bolton calls for war to end North Korea. Allah help us all.

  33. Don Coyote 2017-02-13 10:26

    @cah:The Constitution isn’t statutory law and remains silent on immigration. Congress gave itself the power to regulate immigration in 1882 and its immigration power has been upheld by numerous SCOTUS rulings.

    The only holding of the 9th Circuit was to uphold the temporary restraining order as being overly broad which the Trump Administration had already modified for green card aliens and properly issued visas.

  34. Darin Larson 2017-02-13 11:17

    Cory, you should know by now that the Constitution only applies when a conservative ox is being gored. Otherwise, the Constitution should be ignored in favor of the broad powers of the President.

  35. Richard Schriever 2017-02-13 11:28

    Happy camper – if all that is true – how do you explain people like Anthony Bordain and Andrew Zimmer doing food eating television shows from some of those countries – or the presence of other US media folks there?

  36. Richard Schriever 2017-02-13 11:38

    Coyote – in actuality n- the EO has NOT been “modified”. A person with ZERO statutory authority (Presidents council) has written an “opinion” on whether or not it effects those with green cards. That opinion has ZERO statutory weight.

  37. bearcreekbat 2017-02-13 12:01

    Don C, I do not know whether you have actually read the opinion of the 9th Circuit, but Cory is right. The 9th Circuit ruled that the government was not likely to prevail due to Constitutional protections.

    The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing “notice and an opportunity to respond,” or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered. [citations omitted]

    The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the
    arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.

    . . .

    The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United
    States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). . . . the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with
    constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry.

    . . .

    The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. A law that has a religious, not secular, purpose violates that clause, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971), as does one that “officially prefer[s] [one religious denomination] over another,” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The Supreme Court has explained that this is because endorsement of a religion “sends the ancillary message to
    . . . nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
    Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). The Equal Protection Clause likewise prohibits the Government from impermissibly discriminating among persons based on
    religion. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 50 (9th Cir. 1978).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

    The 1st amendment trumps any statute granting the executive any power if the executive uses that power to discriminate based on religion. The 5th amendment prevents the executive from dispensing with the notice and opportunity to be heard afforded by the due process clause. Hence Cory nailed it and your statutory arguments are insufficient to overcome the restrictions of the Constitution.

  38. mike from iowa 2017-02-13 12:32

    On a brighter note, new Drumpf tv sacrificial lamb sez make no mistake about it- Drumpf”s orders will be obeyed.
    (former Sessions butt buddy, Steve Miller)

    Sounds like a threat from the gubmint to the masses.
    Wonder how they intend to enforce this one?

Comments are closed.