Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump's travel ban

Share

In a pair of filings in the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco said Mr. Trump had acted under his broad constitutional and statutory authority to control immigration when he issued a new proclamation in September announcing the new travel restrictions.

The Trump administration has argued that "extensive worldwide review process" preceded the travel ban and the third order is different from the previous versions.

Challenges to the policy are winding through the federal courts, and the justices themselves ultimately are expected to rule on whether the ban is legal. "We continue to stand for freedom, equality and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones", Jadwat added.

People from the affected countries will be categorically refused entry visas unless they have "bona fide" links inside the United States, such as business transactions or close family relationships.

In February during the State of the Union address, Trump said about his executive order on the travel ban, "It is not compassionate but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting can not occur".

Both courts are dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis, and the Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions "with appropriate dispatch".

Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the order "a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people".


A 9 member Supreme Court reported in 2 comparable one-page orders Monday which lower courtroom judgments which in part impeded the most recent ban ought to be placed on hold as appeals courts in San Francisco bay area as well as Richmond, Virginia ponders this case. The current one, he said, is based on specific findings that some foreign governments do not share enough information to properly vet immigrants. "This massive victory for American security comes just after President Trump boldly withdrew our country from the UN's risky, irresponsible Global Compact on Migration", it said. It also pointed out that non-Muslim countries are on the list and allegations of a religious test were unfounded. "However, there was no ruling yet on the merits of the ban itself, so it's still possible that it can be overturned".

Afaf Nasher directs the NY chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Nashville native Sabina Mohyuddin told News 4 her family emigrated from Bangladesh.

She's talking about her octagenarian father-in-law. Barring any other court decisions, this means that the #MuslimBan can go into ratification and the United States can deny or refuse entry to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, plus North Korea and Venezuela.

"We really just want to see him live out his final years with his family beside him", said Nasher.

Nasher does not accept the rationale that the ban is necessary to ensure Americans' security. It has nothing to do with people coming in from Yemen. "This lie of trying to make things secure, it's nothing but deceit".

ME has thousands of Somali immigrants, many of whom are still waiting for family members to be able to come to the United States. But the travel ban has shaken her confidence in her homeland.

Share