tv Trump v. Hawaii Oral Argument CSPAN April 25, 2018 7:32pm-8:43pm EDT
two. >> saturday, live coverage of the 16th annual annapolis book festival starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern. it includes chris matthews with his book, bobby kennedy. white house correspondent april ryan with her book. tech entrepreneur with a book in the coming age of artificial intelligence. watch live coverage of the annapolis book festival on saturday beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two on book
tv. >> the supreme court heard oral arguments for trump versus hawaii, case about the third version of the president's travel band. it was issued in september 2017. the places travel restrictions on nationals from iran, libya, north korea, syria, somalia, venezuela, and yemen. a three-judge panel ruled the travel ban unconstitutional in december. the supreme court has until the end of june to issue a ruling. >> will hear argument today in which donald trump president of the united states versus hawaii.
>> after worldwide multi agency review, the presidents acting homeland security secretary recommended he adopt entry restrictions on countries that failed to provide the minimum baseline information. this proclamation adopts that and it omits the vast majority of the road because they met the baseline. now applies to only seven countries that fall below the baseline or had other problems. it exerts a diplomatic pressure and to protect the country until they do. the proclamation affects a foreign policy national security judgment that falls within the president's power and has been successful which is why the country of chad was recently dropped from the list. >> you mentioned 1182f. the worry something about it is that the president asked congress is the one responsible for making the laws about immigration.
it has been suggested in one of the previous that 1182f to allow the president to suspend entry but only for a period of time long enough for someone to say yes or no. >> yes, 1182f is a broad and flexible power in a narrow area. here you don't need to explore the outer limits. the plaque proclamation meant to help by making sure we have the minimum information needed to determine if there are admissible. the time limit is inconsistent with the statute and every proclamation never issued. >> i'm sorry, i thought congress had looked at the situation and
created a statutory system that address the very concern the president is expressing. congress said you could have visa waivers if you can meet the three criteria the special committee the president looked at. if you don't, you have to have a very heightened extreme vetting process and suggested its parameters. more importantly, it took terrorist countries and designated which once supported terrorism and added another layer of review and said that if you are national from one of those countries where you have visited one of those countries in the recent past you also have to get the permission of the attorney general and the secretary of state to affirm
you're not a danger to the u.s. >> when i see the president doing the same i'm going to add more to the limits the congress had said into a congress that was enough. where does congress get the authority to do more than congress has already decided was adequate. >> let me try to unpack your question. the basic answer is that it gives the president the authority to impose restrictio restrictions. >> on the very grounds. >> the visa waiver program provides a special benefit to our closest allies needed the
visa waiver program nor any of the others addresses whether we get the minimum level of information needed to determine that coming in from the riskiest countries of the world. it does give them the ability to supplement. it's up to the executive branch to improve it the main purpose is to help implement by making sure we have the minimum baseline information. very basic pieces of information. our they reporting terrorism history are they reporting criminal history. today cooperate on a real-time
basis. suppose that jane doe shows up at the border with a valid be visa but after it was issued her home country learns that she's associated with the terrorist organization but doesn't tell us. when she shows up at the border we can't make an intelligent determination. that's what this proclamation goes to. making sure we have the minimum baseline to determine admissibility. it's different than past proclamations but typical that it seeks to identify harmful conduct that a foreign government is engaging in. it imposes sanctions. that's what president carter did in president reagan did. the harmful conduct to provide us with minimal baseline
information. >> to represent that no other country that fails all three criteria was excluded from this list? >> what i can represent is that it was holistic it was if your overall score so all of the countries listed in the proclamation of the same countries that fail below the baseline with the exception of somalia which the proclamation makes quite clear. iraq did fall below the baseline but wasn't subjected to sanctions. this reflects the taylor nature of this proclamation. the fact that it was meant to impose taylor pressure while taking into account other types of national security
considerations to try to move them across the line. we have now seen it's been successful as with the case. >> if you compare this to the reagan and carter proclamation which are one or two sentences, this is longer than a proclamation i have seen in this particular area. >> this is the most detailed 1182 proclamation in history. >> the proclamation by reagan and carter were not as broad as this. >> to complete my answer, this is the most detailed proclamation ever issued in american history. to be sure it covers more countries than either president reagan sir president carter's. >> and more immigrants. carter's only applied to certain immigrants, not all.
>> president carter's apply to all but then had an exception much like the waiver provision for national interest in humanitarian concerns. >> is your argument a jurisdictional argument? >> yes, i think it is. that's why don't think you really should address any of these issues. the basic rule is the exclusion of aliens is a political act and therefore -- i thought it we decided this was not jurisdictional, or at least the merits with argument the government made. >> i think the second thing he said was accurate. they did not address the review ability issue at all.
>> was the argument raised in that case? >> yes, was. >> so we would've been required to address it. >> one way you could understand it is it doesn't go to article three so we would urge this court to accept it because we think it's correct. even if you don't think it's correct we think it satisfies the merits because it falls within the power of the president under 1182f. >> in your principal response to the establishment clause claim is to cite mindel ones to say once the government comes forward with a legitimate reas reason, national security is the most importantly someone could come forward with, the game is
over. i want to press on that a little bit i want to ask if that means he started talking a lot about the process of this proclamation. i take it that argument would be irrespective of the processes. he would've use the same mandel argument or would you have not? >> we would've made a mandel argument but it stronger give you the process irish this was based. >> when i read mandel i don't see anything about process. you say reason in this court stops. >> i think in addition to that you have the extensive worldwide process you have in a cabinet
level recommendation that has a neutral baseline it concluded that almost all of the world but a tiny number of countries to. whether you fly mandel or mccreary makes a constitutional case overwhelmingly strong. >> let me give you hypothetical. there's ways to distinguish mandel but in terms of thinking about what mandel really foreclosed. >> it's hard to understand the full contours of it. >> so this is a variant that you may have heard before. that sense of future time the president who is an anti-semite
says all kinds of denigrating comments about jews and provokes resentment and hatred over the course of the campaign and in his presidency. in the course of that he has his staff for his cabinet member tissue recommendation so he can issue a proclamation of this kind. they.the ice and cross the tease. what emerges in the context is a proclamation that says no one shall enter from israel. do you say mandel puts an end to the judicial review of those facts? >> no. in that context mandel would be the starting.
it does involve the exclusion of aliens. if his cabinet and this is a type hypothetical, if the cabinet were to come in sake mrl security risk here and you have to act, i think then the president would be allowed to follow that advice. i would also suggest it be difficult for that to satisfy the scrutiny given that israel happens to be one of our closest allies in the war against terrorism. i think you could satisfy that melissa truly were based on a cabinet level recommendation about national security. >> this is an out-of-the-box
kind of president and my hypothetical. >> and he things thurgood diplomatic reasons. and who knows what the future holds. there might be reasons to put pressure on israel and this is a way to better our diplomatic hand. who knows what his heart of hearts is. the question is not what his heart of hearts is, what are reasonable observers to think given this context in which this hypothetical president is making anti-semitic comments. >> it's a tough hypothetical but that's why think it's an easy case. were willing to assume that you consider all of the statements i
think it's wrong that there's some kind of -- were confident that given the basis of this proclamation the matter what standard this is constitutional. since we don't have the hypothetical we have a multi- agent worldwide review that apply a neutral baseline. this was done by the agencies for every country in the world. >> if you have an extreme hypothetical with that be in the establishment clause. >> just as he had a free-speech type claim. there be people who could bring that claim and potentially succeed on the. >> and the people who could bring that were excluded?
what about a university. >> i think they could ring a free-speech type claim under mandel. >> why not an establishment? i don't think they could possibly support the nationwide injunction they're asking for. the reason why they can bring an establishment close is because it doesn't really apply to the respondent. >> as they make clear.
>> otherwise the land transfer to the christian college on the ground. >> these people are saying that's negative religious attitude they're stopping from doing things they would otherwise be able to do to associate with scholars from these countries to bring in students to have family members trying them which is the purpose of the ins. >> they might have free-speech claims but it couldn't support a nationwide injunction. i don't thinks it gives them an establishment clause claim. >> can we go back to something that's bothering me. when it was argued that
basically says the president is the head of the executive branch on that for those in the one end of the theory that he can hire fire anyone he wants and he can put in place whatever policy he wants. if we take the hypothetical presence basically says to his review committee i want to keep out jews, find a way and that is their charge. so in that situation, why with the actions of the committee, whatever this is not be subject
to great suspicion into thorough review, given that they are responsible to the executive and they were told what the outcome of the deliberations must be. >> first, the president's cabinet just like all of us here, it's duty-bound to do defend the constitution. i would suspect if any cabinet member were given that order, they would refuse to comply or resign in the face of the unconstitutional order. secondly, if you had next stream scenario with that broke down than if the president did make that statement i want to keep
out a particular race or religion, that would undermine the legitimacy of the action even under the mandel standard. here you don't have anything like that, you have the cabinet doing the job through the agency whether implying that standard to every country in the world concluded the vast majority of the world was just fine but there are problems with a small number of countries and recommended pressure. >> the problem is i don't see that material was reviewed by the judges below by the ninth circuit for the fourth circuit judges. i thought the government kept confidential and refused to share either with the litigants
are with the courts what was done, how and how it was applied to those countries. understand the confidentiality that might concern you. if the backdrop is the way you describe it then don't you think once you get through the mandel preliminary stage that you need an independent operator to look at the and ensure that the processes what it claimed it w was. >> first of all, the proclamation is transparent only sound great detail the substance to which it's based. under the duty of regularity one branch of the government owes to
another, there's a strong presumption that was being set out there is the truth. >> uses summer earlier, if the president has said we don't want muslims coming into the country, that would undermine the proclamation. honestly, the difference seems to be if everything the president said is effectively that. >> two issues. first, whether you can consider campaign statements. campaign statements are made by a private sister said before they take the oath of office and before the receiving advice of the cabinet. there's a constitutionally significant act that marked the
fundamental information so those statement should be out of bounds. >> suppose you had a local mayor is a canada and he might ask hateful statements and is elected and on day two he takes acts that are consistent with those hateful statements. so whatever he said is irrelevant? >> i say two things. i would say yes because we think the oath marks a fundamental transformation. here, doesn't matter. here the statements they principally reliant don't address the meaning of the proclamation itself. this is not a muslim band. if it were a be the most effective that one could imagine. it omits three muslim majority
countries covered by past orders including iraq, check, and sudan. this is what it purports to be. in order based on a multi agency worldwide review that applied neutral criteria across the world and concluded that most of the world was fine but a small part of it failed to provide us with minimum baseline. terrorism and criminal history that we need to protect the country. >> i did read almost all of the 80 briefs. i think i know the basic arguments but there's one question on left with.
it starts with an assumption that i think you share but i want to be sure. i notice the carter and reagan order both had case-by-case exceptions. this has case-by-case exceptions. and that says case-by-case waivers may be appropriate in circumstances such as. to be no terrorist and in the interest of the united states, the copy onto hardship. the only time hardship is extreme so this must be less than extreme. then a list previously established contacts business reasons, they been here studying or other long-term activity they want to visit a close family member, they have a disease or something they need treatment
for. previously been employed. focus on that class of individuals. in countries of a hundred 50 million people together they must be quite a few who do fall within the class. >> yes, but only a small number that seek to come in. >> now as far as you're concerned, if they fall within that class there's no reason why they should be excluded other than the normal processes. >> in terms of the numbers one of the principal purposes is to exert diplomatic pressure on government to get them to chan change. >> c think they should be excluded. >> that if they meet the
criteria. >> that's what i thought you would say. i wanted to be sure we're on the same page. following within the class here's the problem. it seems there are a significant number of such people there's a business can community and academic community complaining. there's families who say they're trying to get medical treatment nobody told us. they've only admitted to their supposed to be guidance. in the most there is 100. so there's my question. if you have done the same thing the reagan people did in the carter people do, then you get the same thing here. but if this is just window
dressing and they never apply any have something new and different going well beyond. so how do i find out when there's not that information in the brief? to have another hearing or send it back? to say the other side says there's only two people, no notice. these people in yemen and somalia. >> my brief as most current number on waivers. i believe the number on page 17 footnote it's over 400. >> is it well-publicized in these countries that they know they just have to go to the office. >> two responses to that.
i don't know how well-publicized it is. i suspect people understand how to get it. my second responses that in terms of the legality the waiver is not necessary which is why most governments it's a good thing which is why they often have them. >> you immediately consider the lawfulness of this order on the assumption there is no waiver. the seller president reagan did, not what president carter did. if you go through every action that they took. >> no, i don't want you to consider the proclamation on the hypothetical situation but i do think it is has written and
applied falls within the authority. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chief justice. the executive order is unlawful for three reason. it conflicts with policy choices, defies the bar a nationality discrimination, and it violates the first amendment. congress has specified a three-part solution to the same problem the order dresses. alien seeking entry from countries that don't cooperate including state sponsors of terrorism in countries that provide inaccurate information. first they have to go through the vetting process with the burden placed on them. when congress became aware that some countries were family to
satisfy this congress rejected a ban and instead it used credits. they'll get extra credits. they used big sticks like nationality band failed in congress was aware could change. >> let's suppose that intelligent agency say we have% solid information that on a particular day 20 nationals from syria are going to enter the united states with chemical and biological weapons. they could kill tens of thousands of americans. in that situation could the president band syrians on that day. >> he could. there's national discrimination ban and whether -- with respect
to both it would. it will be nationality discrimination for when you have an emergency fast moving situation. >> what if it's a week a month from now? in other words, i'm responding to your point. >> this court has dealt with the and said the president is going to get a pass on what he's going to say the emergency us. can he go to congress and get a legislative impediment. were 460 days later. he's not introduce legislation. were so far from the hypothetical. >> imagine that congress is unable to act when the president asked for legislation. someone introduces a bill the
first of all the president may have qualms about sharing that intelligence but what if there's a bill introduced and not the moose. >> we understand he has residual authority to keep the country safe. congress started this exact problem there's only one problem is identified which is countries not cooperating. his not talking about people coming in. congress has said here's how we deal with it, with the individual's vetting system which places the burden on someone coming in. you have to show biometric id and have an in person interview. if there's any risk that -- congress has said here's how we deal with it and to the extent countries are not cooperating
will offer carrots. congress rejected a flat nationality band. that's for argument lies. my friend of. >> congress did act enacted 1182f. why doesn't this fall squarely within that language? >> it's not perpetual. we think there's a much bigger point. >> maybe you could talk about the text. doesn't 1182f say whenever the president finds the entry of any alien or any class of aliens support class aside.
i don't see why people from a particular country doesn't constitute a class. >> because it's so broad and it allows the president to supplement what congress has done we think you have to be careful and read it how you read the other statutes which how do you harmonize that broad text with the rest of the ina. if you accept their idea that he has such a sweeping power he couldn't the family preference system and and chain migration. he could do any provisions of the ina and turn it into a line item veto. that's something the courts have dealt with. >> does this proclamation do anything like that? does it purport to establish a
new, permanent immigration policy? >> absolutely. it's a perpetual policy that bans does what they said you couldn't do and 65. several other times that said instead of these bands were gonna balance foreign policy considerations humanitarian, all that together and said we want to the flat pan instead will have an approach. >> what is your thing that's perpetual. >> there's nothing in the order that ends it. that's not true. >> it does not have to be really re-examined everyone hundred and 80 days thing happens at the end. >> that indicates will be a
reassessment. >> this argument would be there if there's anything about reassessment. including the cuba order there's nothing like that in this. it's just like a reporting argument to congress. that's why unlike any executive order if you go back look at all 43 executive orders not have countermanded congress' judgment in the area. they've all been supplement. >> this says he can have continuous supervision over whether still necessary. >> we went have a problem with it if it could be reactor something this is about a
perpetual problem. >> if the president said in six months will have a safe world. >> here that he's identifying the problem. the soviet union was round we don't have countries that cooperate with us in vetting. the solution has always been not to have a flat band but to have a fine-grained system. >> what if the advisors said the president ought to order an airstrike against syria and the president says would you regard that is discrimination this is about the assurances of he says. >> on to this there is a strike
so i don't think there's any immigration issue. >> any type of targeted action that would have an impact on the muslim population. >> we think the president has wide authority. >> why would that constitute discrimination under your establishment clause is discrimination on the basis of faith because he is said in the past few except the arguments his anti- muslim. >> no president has run afoul in this. the president has directly tied this policy to those statements. it's the greatest illustration. before doing so i want to make very clear the consequences of
their position as the president can take a wrecking ball and countermand the judgment. >> were looking at the assumption that we can reach the merits. the government makes the argument that aliens were removed from this country have to bring their claims personally. and third party cannot vindicate those rights and asked the question why it should be there person's should have certain rights of aliens. >> this is not a third-party case. there united states citizens bringing the challenges. >> there directly harm themselves. let me just give you an example the state of hawaii.
if you look at the 10-year-old this is a 10-year-old daughter in yemen is trying to come here. >> those arguments don't work with respect to aliens present in the country. so the very same arguments wouldn't succeed. >> because there you have a plaintiff who might not be willing to bring them in the united states. but here these folks are directly impacted. you heard my frank conceded that the issue in sales that's how you briefed it up. this court had that situation. our statutory point is that if you accept this order you giving the president the power. no president and hundred years
has countermand the policy judgment. he had zero examples to say when congress steps in and solves the exact problem the president can come in and say one a different solution. you and get rid of all sorts of small things like a preference for specialty like software engineers. the president could say i'm going to ban software engineers from going to california. >> maybe you're right that 1182f needs to have some limits to prevent the president from doing something contrary. but you're suggesting the president can't to anything contemplated. >> so then what are you saying this is contrary to?
seems you'd have to point to a clear and direct conflict between what he's doing and another statutory provision. >> our view is that he can supplement but not supplant in this case they'll say there's three things you look at. it's not direct act can't -- three things. first, can these solutions coexist? second to have an articulated scheme and third there any other indication that they consider it in a different direction. only this proclamation satisfies all three factors. they have a scheme that deals with the exact problem is identified can't coexist, it
makes no sense to have the impersonal visa interview which is from people who come from state sponsors of terrorism congress said there has to be an in person interview. doesn't make sense to have a visa waiver program which is about countries that provide certain information to the united states and say were gonna give you a carrot. the will say forget about the visa waiver program. >> to know of any situation in which the threat of the infiltration of the united states by terrorists was so severe with respect to a particular country could be deemed to be adequate.
>> yes. the president would have a robust authority to deal with the. >> your arguments courts have the duty to review whether there is this for the course to do not the president. >> it's exactly what you said when he joined the opinion as long as they have wide birth in this area certainly if there's an emergency but when you have a statute that concerns the same problem and nothing new you've identified that congress didn't consider the same type of things, it's a perennial problem that countries don't cooperate with united states it comes to vetting. >> the president may have more particular problems developing in congress address the question
of vetting that those arise in a particular context. it's a difficult argument to say they were pressured enough. >> for example of something came along like a virus that wiped out the software then the president would have the power to do it. >> what about the change of administration in which the vetting procedures will not be taken seriously. >> congress anticipated a state sponsor of terrorism. providing no information congress said were not going to have a nationality ban and said will have individualized vetting i can imagine an emergency
situation but here we are 460 days later and i'll caution you not to make a decision based on an emergency. this is so far from the. the text is slightly violated here. no discrimination on the basis of national reality with the issuance of visas. it's a large part of the visas. immigrant visas are the heart about what the nation becomes. this executive order flatly contradicts that. if you accept his interpretation he says were discriminating on the entry side that the visa
side then you're given the president the power to onto this and he's in post country quotas of zero. >> your argument based on discrimination, is there statute of limitations on that? is that a band from presidential findings. >> i want to be very clear, our point about 1152 has nothing to do with campaign statements. it's the text of the proclamation which is nationality -based discrimination. >> i want to make absolutely clear that you don't need to do any of that for purposes of 1152.
it would knock out 30% of the most important order. >> we think the test is a reasonable objective that we think my friend is right. you shouldn't look to campaign statements in general feeling thing is here the president has rekindled exactly that. if you look at page 70 you have a good example. after the latest executive order the president tweeted these videos and the press said what is this about. the president spoke about this in the proclamation. >> the question is does this apply forever? >> i think the president could've easily moved away from the statements.
but instead he embrace them. >> such mahi issues of proclamation steam he's disavowing them the next day he could put it back in. >> that's what they said. >> is your answer yes? >> yes he could reenter this near discrimination argument would not be applicable. >> that's what a reasonable objective. >> a reasonable observer reading this proclamation without taking into account statement think this was a muslim ban. >> i think there 50 predominant muslim countries in the world.
five of those were on the list. the population make up about 80% of the world's muslim population. if you looked at the ten countries with the most muslims, one would be on the list. what a reasonable observer. >> if it were just the text of the order alone it might raise eyebrows. we would not be here. we agree it's the same test you have to look at all the circumstances around it. the fact that it only is some muslim countries i don't think it means it's not religious discrimination. if phenomena player and i have ten african-americans working for me and i fired two of them i
think anybody can say it's not discrimination. >> it's one of four fundamental values that there's religious freedom here for everyone. my only point is if you look at what's done it doesn't look like a muslim ban. there are other things such a as to why these countries were put on the list. seems to me the list creates a strong inference that it was not done for that purpose. >> if it were just the listed be right. although you yourself had said if the burden imposed falls almost exclusively in those with religious objections. it does fall almost exclusively on muslims.
so it does look very much but even then we wouldn't be here if it were for all the different statements. the best evidence would be to look at the wide variety of briefs from every corner of society representing millions of people. >> it's been a long time since we use that even to strike down a domestic statute. what we do about that? >> because this is immigration it cuts the other way. catholics at the founding in the protest of king george which is about using the power to exclude people of a different faith.
the second we don't think have to get into lemon these other tests. think the court was clear and say when you talk about denigration of religion all the test point the same direction. >> he said he wouldn't be here if all of those statements were not made. to mean that on all of your basis is? >> only in the establishment clause. sophie talks about this worldwide vetting process. member his own argument. >> clearly the statements even conceded by your adversary to give your basis to look behind. so for looking behind in how do you deal with the general
suggestion that there is a cleansing that occurred because of the agencies and departments who participated. >> number one, his own argument is that it puts the president in the driver seat. second, the order says in one into that it's an outgrowth third and most importantly, the president before this review process began tweeted and said he wanted to not politically correct band. given that 1182 forces the president to make the proclamation i don't even think
>> back something i am thinking about but the statute that you point to one of the one there is obviously objections to what you are saying in you say you do have to have an interview with a official and so it does say that. and you do have that with respect to everyone under that exception so there isn't much problem going beyond that. in respect to other people. my question is which i could not find it, is it true that what they say maybe that is not so? they don't publicize that?
they don't put forward a guidance? they don't know they can qualify and if it turns out that it is something that is important to the lawfulness of the order because there are many categories there, what do we do? >> number one with this process it is on page 14 coming to the united states the 10-year-old was denied a waiver justice breyer 430 people have gotten waivers or how often it is in the data that we do have suggests that matter of percentages very weak. just the state of hawaii has 1000 letters from people most of which that state. >> but it is a question for remedy for me with this
nationwide cosmic injunction not to relief to the parties that issue or even class-action as near as i can tell it is a very new develop where the district court will strike down a federal statute that has gotten anybody anywhere in the world. what do we do about that? >> the injunction has been trimmed by the supreme court that is something we are debating right now with the context of the contraception case but this is the example to get into with united states versus texas is an immigration case and to say there must be a uniform rule of naturalization so i get why the court may not want to get into it but with the supreme court that it would almost be the advisory opinion but
congress is in the driver's seat with immigration in this passage the limit with every president has done with this proclamation since 1918 to accept here was to it except can take an entire wrecking ball to pick and choose anything he doesn't want that it cannot be the law of the united states. >> okay. [laughter] you don't have to. [laughter] if there are any other question questions? >> your five minutes for rebuttal. >> mr. chief justice maia please the court i really do just have a last you point unless the owners have additional questions justice breyer to respond in more detail to your question how
the waiver process works, the state state department does publish the waiver process on the website but it is applied automatically by the consular offices that when somebody applies for a visa they first determine whether the person is otherwise admissible if they are inadmissible you don't even get to the proclamation. for those who are not inadmissible under other parts of 1182 then they turn the proclamation that is the subject and if you are than it never applies. if you are not subject to the exception send the officer turns to the waiver provision and applies the criteria so it does get applied in every single cas case. >> the waiver is built over
issues that i am not familiar enough with the details of that case to tell you what happened in that particular case, but. >> you have read the briefs as have i. the list of ten or 15 years the cerebral palsy then there is another brief those who are professors and scholars at university and then they list the students from these countries and then the business community invests a bunch that they have been unable to get and we don't know what going on. but they say nothing is going on a mac i'm just saying that i don't know. principal purpose of the proclamation of course is to assert pressure to provide
with the needed information that brings me to the second point that the individual vetting process depends upon the minimum baseline of information to determine if the person is admissible so when they show up at our border with a visa that we may have found that the issue pursuant to the individual vetting process for the home government know something that does not tell us we cannot intelligently and make that admission now i would like to address 1152. about nationality. >> one second. i for one am concerned about this window so what is in place to ensure this what you personally doing to represent to us about this process?
>> the state department consular officers automatically upon apply the process with every application they are doing that that is why they look at the brief all the waivers issue. >> are they looking to see what those reasons are? >> i cannot claim i have looked into every individual case to make make your 1152. >> yes that addresses one thing, the issuance of immigrant pieces. it does not address the broader question whether somebody will enter personally. that is governed by 1182 so essentially 1182 for those who are eligible to come into the country in the first place often that is a foreign policy and national security judgment
1152 is one is one of the rules that governs how we distribute visa among that group that is eligible and it isn't just nationality also likely for resident so once you have that universe of eligible people it governs how you distribute. >> assume you disagree with me we just have to enter the proclamation in a slightly different way maybe the immigrant visa but not the nonimmigrant visa those were not allowed to enter we would not have to allow anyone to enter we don't have to issue that nonimmigrant visa so the bottom line is we are wrong on that case. my final point has to do with my brothers recognition if the president were to say tomorrow this that all of us would go away but the president has made crystal clear september 25 and he had no intention of
imposing a band he has made crystal clear that muslims are great american and there are many muslim countries who love this country and is of the great countries of the world is proclamation is what is about what it says it is policy and national security and we would ask you reverse the court ruling. >> thank you counsel. the case. is submitted.
in the agreement beat up the timeline for the nomination the comments could have delayed a final vote until friday to get support from every republican senator for democrats that they will support him an independent from maine who caucuses with gimmicky modesto mcgrath also came out of the boat. marking coverage of the final debate tomorrow on c-span2 here is some of the debates from today. >> i write to express my opposition to mike pompeo serving as the top diplomats. as i said earlier this week i am generally disappointed to cast a vote against the secretary of state nominee. i believe united states needs an effective