Politics ESSENTIAL WASHINGTON

A look at President Trump's administration and the rest of Washington:

Immigration

States urge appeals court to leave judge's order in place blocking Trump's immigration order

Volunteer translator Nour Our, left, and volunteer attorney Kat Choi offer help to travelers as they arrive at Los Angeles International Airport. (Kyle Grillot / AFP/Getty Images)
Volunteer translator Nour Our, left, and volunteer attorney Kat Choi offer help to travelers as they arrive at Los Angeles International Airport. (Kyle Grillot / AFP/Getty Images)

Removing a hold on President Trump’s travel moratorium would “unleash chaos again” and hurt business and universities, two states told a federal appeals court Monday.

In written arguments , lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota  said a temporary hold on Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations should remain in place until a lower court determines whether the order was unconstitutional.

The state of Washington citied a litany of problems caused by the order. More than 7,000 non-citizen immigrants from the affected countries live in Washington, the state told the appeals court.

“Those who were abroad were blocked from returning home,” the states argued. “Husbands were separated from wives, brothers from sisters, and parents from their children."

Nearly 100 businesses, including well-known technology firms such as Apple, Google, Twitter and Uber, filed arguments supporting the states’ case.

The companies argued the ban was disruptive, making it more difficult for them to recruit and retain employees and threatening their ability to attract attract talent, business, and investment to the United States.

A number of former national security and intelligence officials — including former secretaries of State John F Kerry and Madeleine Albright, former defense secretary and CIA director Leon E. Panetta, and ex-national security advisor Susan Rice — also sided with the states.

In a declaration , they argued that the order "could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counter-terrorism and national security partnerships.”

Latest updates

Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World
55°