Updated at 5:26 p.m.
Gov. Phil Scott and Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vt.) on Monday called President Donald Trump’s executive order halting refugee resettlement and banning immigration from seven Muslim nations unconstitutional.
The bipartisan condemnations came during separate events in different parts of the state. Scott, a Republican, addressed the presidential action Monday afternoon while addressing business leaders at Rutland’s Southside Steakhouse.
“I think this infringes upon our constitutional rights,” Scott said in response to reporters’ questions. “So we’re looking for — seeking ways to push back.”
Trump’s executive order, issued last Friday, halted the resettlement of 25 Syrian families in Rutland. Two families relocated to the city in the week before the order was issued.
Speaking earlier that day at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Welch said he also viewed Trump’s action as unconstitutional.
“But I’m not here as a lawyer. I’m here as a Vermonter,” Welch continued. “I’m here as somebody who wants us not to have a constitutional requirement that guides our behavior, but to have a human consideration to guide our behavior.”
David Carle, a spokesman for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), said Monday that his boss concurred with several court orders issued over the weekend blocking portions of Trump’s action.
“He agrees with the federal judges who have reviewed the executive order that there is a substantial likelihood that it’s unconstitutional,” Carle said.
A spokesman for Vermont’s third congressional delegate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the executive order. But he provided a statement from Sanders calling it “anti-Muslim.”
“By temporarily barring all immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries and giving preference to Christian refugees, Trump is doubling down on the hateful rhetoric he used during his campaign,” Sanders said in the statement. “Further, he is breaking with the historic tradition of the U.S. and turning his back on those men, women and children fleeing violence, oppression and starvation.”
Vermont’s eight mayors released a statement of their own Monday afternoon arguing that Trump’s order “unconstitutionally” prohibits approved refugees from immigrating to the U.S. The bipartisan group, called the Vermont Mayors Coalition, includes Mayors Bill Benton of Vergennes, Liz Gamache of St. Albans, John Hollar of Montpelier, Thom Lauzon of Barre, Seth Leonard of Winooski, Chris Louras of Rutland, Paul Monette of Newport and Miro Weinberger of Burlington.
“We have sworn oaths to protect our citizens from violence and defend the U.S. Constitution,” the group wrote. “The Vermont mayors support government efforts to develop and implement effective, reasonable and constitutional laws, orders and policies in order to keep our borders and citizens safe and secure. We believe the president’s order falls far short of this standard.”
Welch, who delivered his remarks alongside ACLU of Vermont executive director James Lyall, said that he had “never seen an action by the president of the United States that has been so damaging to the tradition of religious liberty” as Trump’s. He said the move would “make us less safe, not more safe.”
Despite the president’s claims to the contrary, Welch said the executive order was “essentially a ban on Muslims coming.” He noted that Trump had called for such a ban during his presidential campaign — and that an adviser, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Saturday that he had worked with Trump to come up with a legal method to bar Muslims.
“So that’s what it is,” Welch said.
Asked several times Monday whether he saw the executive order as a ban on Muslims, Scott equivocated.
“I think it’s a ban on our way of life,” he said. “I’m opposed to it regardless of whether it’s because they’re Muslim or it’s because they’re from those countries. It doesn’t really matter.”
The governor pledged to “do anything we can to help those who are affected.” But he did not immediately elaborate on how his administration would respond. A spokeswoman said later Monday that a plan was forthcoming.
Asked whether he would stand firm against the executive order, even if the Trump administration tried to withhold federal funding to Vermont, Scott said, “We would challenge that.”
Leahy and Welch both planned to introduce legislation overturning Trump’s executive order. Leahy was also drafting a measure that would “affirm that the United States should remain a global leader in welcoming refugees and asylum seekers,” according to Carle. Welch said he would sponsor additional legislation reinstating visas for residents of the seven affected countries who worked for the U.S. military.
“We’ve gotta resist this, and we’ve gotta reverse it,” Welch said.
Disclosure: Paul Heintz worked as Peter Welch’s communications director from November 2008 to March 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Hey Scott I thought you were a Republican. Grow a back bone and help President Trump project the citizens of this country instead of cowering to the Democrats that don’t seem to care about the American people in this country. Do your job Mr. Governor.
Also just so our political leaders understand the constitution lays out the laws and rights for American citizens, the rights that it outline are for AMERICANS and do not apply to all the people of the world. How about our leaders start looking out for the best interest of the people they were elected to represent instead of people that are not even citizens of this country.
re: Comment posted by “citizen” on 01/30/2017 at 3:51 PM
Too bad the above person who goes by the name of “citizen” doesn’t have the courage to identify themselves. Instead, they offer up nothing but empty criticism when this isn’t really a partisan issue. If you care about our country you should be very concerned with many aspects of President Trump’s first week in office. Let’s not forget alt-right news guy Steve Bannon, former head of Breitbart News, and now presidential counselor was just this week appointed by Trump to be on the National Security Council(!!!). And don’t forget that professional mental health experts have come out and said that President Trump exhibits all the symptoms of malignant narcissism which has been reported to be representative of a serious mental health condition.
Governor Phil Scott did the right thing as this has nothing to do with being a Republican or Democrat but rather what is needed by all Americans who value what our country has historically stood for around the world. Governor Scott is correct as the Executive Order on immigration is in violation of the United States’ obligations under the Geneva Convention and other international treaties.
Aw, poor citizen has a sad that his Governor isn’t afraid of Muslims like he is.
Trump’s order is too broad by reportedly scooping up legitimate refugees who have been through the vetting process; and people who cooperated with military in Iraq.
On the other hand, this is a complicated issue. Right here in Vermont, Edin Sakoc, a supposed refugee from the Bosnian conflict (who had been “vetted”), was found guilty of lying about his role in Bosnian war crimes so he could gain entry to US. The woman contracted out by the State Department said she had about 10 or 15 minutes to interview each person among 1,000’s in the refugee camp. She had no way of knowing if the person claiming refugee status was lying during their interview.
http://www.wcax.com/story/27923517/vermont…
Also, Obama slowed the admittance of refugees from majority-Muslim Iraq for 6 months to improve vetting in 2011 (longer than Trump’s order). Something like 40 majority-Muslim nations are not on Trump’s Executive Order. Nations like Saudi Arabia are not included because the Saudis help the neo-cons in both parties who want to continue the unauthorized proxy war vs. Iran (even when it creates refugee “collateral damage” in Syria).
I think we are all so blinded by our partisanship on both sides; and both political parties always so desperately trying to score points or find wedge issues that we are not appreciating there are legitimate moral claims on both sides of this issue.
Why is it inappropriate for a state law enforcement officer to assist federal agents in the apprehension of illegally present persons? And why shouldn’t a governor sanction immigration enforcement which is a paramount responsibility of the federal government, i.e., protecting U.S. citizens? To my mind, it is possible that not all the people in this state belong here, and some of them may be criminals.
The responsibility of all our elected officials is to insure a safe, secure community for citizens. I fear that in their zeal to protect legal immigrants, and in concern for our state’s independence, our governor and representatives are precluding effective law enforcement outcomes, and jeopardizing our personal and public safety.