Limited Travel Ban Still Stokes Islamophobia, CAIR-MN Says


"What do I do?" Those are all things UK PhD student Adnan Darwish says he thinks about during prayer.

The revised ban does not apply to legal permanent residents and those with current valid visas, but legal experts said it will apply to those who have yet to apply for entry to the U.S. All he could think about Monday was how fortunate he had been.

Thus, the decision will allow the 120-day ban on refugees to be implemented, given that those people are fleeing their countries of origin and have no prior relationship with United States individuals or institutions.

"Can I put you as my sponsor?" asked Mohamed, who like Amir did not want his last name published for fear of repercussions. It called the announcement "mixed news" in a statement, praising it for limiting some of the executive order's reach but criticizing the court for partially allowing the executive order to be enforced. In the meantime, the administration can bar travellers from six majority-Muslim countries from the US if they don't have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship" with someone or some entity in the country.

"This whole year has been about: what's next", said Karen Ferguson, head of the International Rescue Committee's Northern California chapter, which had already seen a slowdown in admitted refugees to the region since the beginning of the year. And so, many community members were calling us, asking us, 'Can we travel?' That's what people are concerned about.

Bona fide connections to entities, it said, must be "formal" and "documented".

Immigration advocates say that most visas go to travellers with ties to the United States so there should be little discretion for customs officials and few should be denied entry.

"Once that happens, the travel ban can not apply to them", he said.

They said it violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims, with all but the appeals court saying it is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court didn't quite hit a home run Monday, but the justices hit a sharp double and a couple of singles that showed that there's life yet in the lineup.

"So the result is most of the travel ban remains not implemented and that will continue through to at least October ..."

But other advocates interpreted the ruling as a big defeat, such as Hardy Vieux, legal director of the nonprofit group Human Rights First. The ruling was not unanimous, however, as the four Democratic appointees on the court were silent.

Individuals who form bona fide relationships with individuals or entities in the United States after June 26, 2017: The Court's decision is not clear on whether it is prospective or retrospective only.

On the other hand, the justices said, relationships created for the purposes of evading the travel ban will not be considered valid.

The narrowed travel ban will take effect in 72 hours.

"They have extensive ties here, and it would be hard to say that they don't", Nezer said.

The Department of Homeland Security, meanwhile, said Monday's order "restores to the Executive Branch crucial and long-held constitutional authority to defend our national borders".

"There is no clear definition of what that means", said Justin Gest, assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University. "There is no mass deportation in the US, so there is no push factor", he said. "And if you let unvetted people into the country from places where they may want to blow us up - it's a good idea to keep an eye on who they are".

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was "rooted in religious animus" toward Muslims and pointed to Trump's campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.

"I'm thinking about all my friends in Turkey", he said.