Victory for Trump as Supreme Court allows 'Muslim' travel ban

Share

Victory for Trump as Supreme Court allows 'Muslim' travel ban

I asked Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, which brought one of the cases that is now before the Court.

US President Donald Trump has welcomed a Supreme Court ruling allowing his travel ban to be partly reinstated as a "victory for our national security".

The ban affects some people coming to the US from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - all predominantly Muslim countries. It said the travel ban can not be enforced against any "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity" in the U.S.

However, one category of foreigners remain protected by the court, those "with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States".

Though Monday's decision wasn't the final word on the travel ban, Trump touted it as "a clear victory for our national security".

The White House received the ruling as a victory, but the number of people who will actually be affected is limited.

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are US permanent residents, known as green card holders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 10-3 that it discriminated against Muslims by targeting only countries with overwhelmingly large Muslim majorities.

Earlier this month, Trump said in a presidential memorandum that the travel ban could be expected to go into effect within 72 hours of relevant court rulings.

"He didn't get everything he wanted", said Dr. Moore.

Under the U.S. Constitution, many mistakes are within a President's power to make. The "bona fide" relationship does not apply to non-profits and the refugees they represent. Those individuals include, for example, someone with close family here or acceptance to an American university. He has said the temporary travel ban was necessary to keep risky people out of the country while stronger vetting policies were created. The justices used the same language for refugees as for visitors in the ban: They're exempt if they "can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States".

Trump's initial executive order - handed down without warning a week after he took office in January - triggered mayhem at airports in the United States and overseas until it was blocked by the courts less than a week later. Those without such ties, by contrast, would be blocked-but, at present, for bureaucratic reasons, such people can't be admitted to the U.S.as refugees anyway.

He's bracing for an uptick of hate crime incidents, which he said tends to happen after anti-Muslim remarks or policies take place. If the president had gotten the details right the first time, the US could have been admitting foreigners under newly tightened rules. And in the entire universe of pending visas, there's only one category of visa that doesn't involve a tie to a USA entity like a school or a job or a hospital or a U.S. individual like a relative, which would be a tourist visa.

That is an important acknowledgment that the administration could not at this stage credibly convince the court of the urgent need to abridge the rights of thousands of Americans: a wife expecting a husband, a university anticipating a student, an employer awaiting an employee. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case in the fall. But by then, a key provision may have expired, possibly making the review unnecessary.

"Allowing parts of the ban to go into effect with respect to some immigrants and refugees is disappointing." says Michal Rosenn, general counsel at Kickstarter, said in a statement provided to CNN Tech. The new travel ban was blocked by another Federal judge, leaving Trump angry, as he vowed to engage in a long battle with the courts.

Gorsuch, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented in part on Monday, saying they would have put the entire order into effect immediately. He does. What the court still has to decide is whether he went too far.

Stay on topic - This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand.

We want to hear from you.

Be proactive - Use the "Flag as Inappropriate" link at the upper right corner of each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Share

Advertisement

© 2015 Leader Call. All Rights reserved.