Saturday, 19 January, 2019

Tech industry on travel ban: The fight goes on

Alfredo Watts | 27 June, 2017, 09:22

The US Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of his travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees and agreeing to decide its legality later this year in a major test of presidential powers.

While it is no doubt bile in the throats of progressives and the blinkered, U.S. President Donald Trump can claim victory with the Supreme Court's decision Monday to allow his travel ban to go ahead. The highest court in the land is set to hear the case for the controversial travel ban when it reconvenes in October.

"My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe", Trump's statement reads".

Trump said today's ruling was vindication of his approach and allowed him "to use an important tool for protecting our nation's homeland".

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. Legal challenges are quickly filed against the ban, which denies entry to all refugees for 120 days, and travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days.

In the meantime, the court allowed the federal government to implement the travel and refugee bans contained in Trump's March 6 executive order in part - against those without connections to people or groups in the US.

Recall, Trump's revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar from United States entry travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days.

This is published unedited from the IANS feed. These individuals are being placed in a different category, not on account of their own merits, but as an indirect result of the Court's efforts to protect the rights of the American citizens or entities to which they have ties.

"The government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States", the court said.

Sessions says vetting of those seeking to come to the crucial for national security.

The court also agreed to hear the case involving travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries and all refugees in the early fall, leaving open the chance that it could reverse Monday's verdict if challengers can prove the ban is illegal or unconstitutional. District Judge Mark Goldsmith requested the lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and other immigrant rights advocates to expand his order nationwide in order to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the deportation of Iraqi nationals.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the ban, said Trump's order couldn't be separated from the apparent animus against Muslims that inspired it.

Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.

The Court's opinion was a Per Curiam, not authored by any particular justice.

Trump s travel ban s legal woes had left in limbo a key campaign promise by the Republican to crack down on immigration from Muslim countries.

But courts ruled that because it applied selectively to mainly Muslim countries, the ban violated the US Constitution's ban on religious discrimination.