Fear, concern and confusion: Sacramento-area Muslims react to travel ban ruling


The high court is letting a limited version of the Trump administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.

Three conservative justices wrote separately to say that they would have reinstated the travel ban altogether, signaling that they will vote to uphold the ban when the time comes. People with a reprieve from the ban include "a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience", but not someone who "enters into a relationship simply to avoid" the restrictions-such as foreigners who rush to get themselves added to a client list of an American nonprofit organisation like IRAP.

But the other six kept blocking it as it applies to those traveling to the US on employment, student or family immigrant visas as well as other cases where the traveler can show a "bona fide" connection to the U.S.

Two appeals courts have ruled against the ban, one by saying that anti-Muslim discrimination was the guiding force behind the executive order, the other by saying Trump did not provide a valid national security reason for it.

"As president, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm".

The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals overseas and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, "the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the goal of evading" the travel ban.

'My number one responsibility as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. Monday's order appeared focused on balancing the parties' interests, with its argument that Americans aren't sufficiently "burdened" if they have no connection to the foreign national seeking entry, and the foreign nationals themselves don't have a right to come in.

The justices will hear full arguments in October in the case that has stirred heated emotions across the nation. But critics have called the order a mean-spirited, intolerant and un-American "Muslim ban".

"The implementation of the executive order will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travellers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry", the Department of Homeland security said in a statement. "To that end, Oxfam plans to submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of plaintiffs challenging this harmful and discriminatory Executive Order".

The administration has said the 90-day ban was needed on national security grounds to allow an internal review of screening procedures for visa applicants from the six countries.

The ruling sets up a potential clash between the government and opponents of the ban over the strength of visitors' ties to the United States.

The report does note that the aspects of the Super Court-granted order allows for entry of those individuals who already attained a travel visa.

During his campaign for the presidency previous year, Trump had said he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

The lower courts dealt with the executive order by freezing its operation altogether.

There are a wide range of opinions on the new Supreme Court ruling.