A flurry of lawsuits have been filed in the wake of President Donald Trump’s first wave of executive orders aimed at toughening U.S. immigration policies.

Trump postponed the scheduled signing of a directive on cybersecurity Tuesday as his administration addressed the legal challenges.

From Los Angeles to New York to Washington state, those affected by the Trump decree temporarily barring the entry of certain citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries alleged that Trump’s order — and the way it has been carried out — is unlawful and discriminatory.

“Our main concerns right now are people are not being allowed to board planes at all internationally ... we’re definitely talking about people with visas,” said Stacy Tolchin, a Los Angeles-based immigration attorney. She said that was happening “at a massive level.”

San Francisco sued over another Trump order, his move to cut funding to immigrant-protecting “sanctuary cities.”

The U.S. government cannot “put a gun to the head of states and localities” to carry out federal dictates, City Attorney Dennis Herrera said at a news conference with Mayor Ed Lee.

Los Angeles, another avowed sanctuary city, did not appear ready to follow San Francisco’s lead. “We are still weighing our options,” said Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for City Attorney Mike Feuer.

Meanwhile, in Sacramento, the state Senate Public Safety Committee advanced a bill that would provide statewide safe haven for immigrants by restricting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The 5-2 vote fell along party lines.

Republicans and law enforcement groups say the bill would make it harder to keep California secure. “I think this bill is making it that much more difficult for the federal authorities to get the most dangerous criminals that we want to deport to keep our communities safe,” said Sen. Jeff Stone, a Temecula Republican who voted against the measure.

In the midst of the challenges, the Trump administration said Tuesday that 872 refugees will be allowed into the United States this week. Kevin McAleenan, the acting head of Customs and Border Protection, said Tuesday that the refugees were already traveling and stopping them would cause “undue hardship.”

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said the temporary travel ban for the seven countries might be extended and other countries could also be added to the list.

Trump supporters say his immigration moves are intended to keep America safer.

“This is not about religion,” the president said in a statement Grandbetting after issuing his orders. “This is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

While supporting the president’s immigration efforts, Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that the rollout of the travel restrictions was “terrible.”

“The rollout of this executive order was terrible. The way people were not involved or consulted. The president deserved much better than the rollout that he got of this plan.”

Wave of lawsuits

Trump’s travel restrictions include blocking the entry of citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen for 90 days. On Sunday, a federal judge responded by issuing a stay that bars U.S. border agents from removing anyone in the U.S. with a valid visa from those seven countries.

The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, along with other entities, filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit in Washington state challenging the executive order’s suspension of immigrant visas, family visas and employment visas that are being processed abroad.

Despite the judge’s stay, people are not being permitted to get on planes abroad to come to America, said Matt Adams, legal director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

“These are individuals who have already been approved and now are stopped from boarding planes coming here as well as people still in the process (of being approved) based on the fact that they’re from the seven countries that are predominantly Muslim,” Adams said.

Among the plaintiffs is a Syrian mother, a green-card holder, who had filed a petition to bring her 16-year-old son from war-torn Syria to the U.S. They are in the final stage of processing, waiting only for an immigrant visa interview to be scheduled, Adams said, but the executive order has suspended these interviews.

Homeland Security’s Kelly said Sunday that green-card holders would not be subject to the temporary travel ban unless there’s “significant derogatory information” indicating the person is a serious threat. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials did not respond to a request for an interview Tuesday.

At least two lawsuits filed over the weekend involve Los Angeles International Airport. One filed by the Public Counsel and other immigrant groups seeks an injunction ordering officials to permit lawyers access to individuals detained at LAX, said Jennie Pasquarella, director of immigrants’ rights for the American Civil Liberties Union of California.

“We still don’t have access,” she said Tuesday. “There is no access for attorneys.”

A separate lawsuit involves Ali Khoshbakhti Vayeghan, an Iranian citizen who arrived at LAX after his visa for permanent legal residence was approved by the U.S. last year through his son, a U.S. citizen who lives in Indiana, according to court documents.

The lawsuit alleges Vayeghan, whose wife had already immigrated to Indiana, was held for more than 18 hours at the airport, forced to sign a document that he did not understand and was carried onto a flight to Dubai before being sent back to Iran.

A judge ruled Sunday that he should be allowed to return and he’s expected to arrive in the U.S. sometime soon, Pasquarella said.

The Associated Press and City News Service contributed to this report.

Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.