Tuesday, 17 October, 2017

American Supreme Court granted Trump's provisional ban

Murkiness follows Supreme Court's action on travel ban Q&A: Murkiness follows Supreme Court's action on travel ban
Alfredo Watts | 28 June, 2017, 03:42

"The government's interest in enforcing [the travel ban is] undoubtedly at [its] peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States", said the majority. Trump's initial travel ban, issued without warning on a Friday in January, brought chaos and protests to airports nationwide as travelers from seven targeted countries were barred even if they had prior permission to come to the U.S. The State Department canceled up to 60,000 visas but later reversed that decision.

Likewise, the justices said, refugees can travel to the USA if they demonstrate those connections - contrary to the part of Trump's executive order suspending the nation's refugee program. He said in a statement that his "number one responsibility" is to keep Americans safe. Of the 50,000 refugees the government planned to accept in the current budget year, more than 48,900 have been allowed to enter the U.S.

This means those with no "bona fide" U.S. ties can be barred from entry if they come from any of the six Muslim-majority countries subject to the ban. The Supreme Court would not hear arguments on the legality of the ban until October.

The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to go forward with a limited version of its ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the ban would be implemented starting 72 hours after being cleared by courts.

The initial order created chaos and confusion as the Trump administration scrambled to make changes amid backlash as legal US residents, refugees and holders of valid visas were denied boarding at foreign airports or detained and sent back overseas after landing in the United States.

The justices will hear arguments in the case in the fall.

Last month, the 4th Circuit Court said the president's revised order "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination".

"This decision is a true compromise", said Kari Hong, an immigration law expert at Boston College Law School.

The March 6 motion called for a 90-day ban on passengers entering the U.S. from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and a 120-day ban on all refugees, using that time to allow the government to introduce more stringent checks on borders. The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name. "I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive", Trump added.

In response, the Trump administration said it would ask the Supreme Court to review the appellate decision upholding the stay blocking enforcement of the March 6 executive order. Dershowitz argued for the second, more moderate ban put forth by the White House after courts struck down the original order and said it's incorrect to assert the president's lack of authority when it comes to barring entry.

The State Department has said that the few remaining refugees to be admitted this year will not have to prove a "bona fide relationship".

"If left in place, the order threatens both American higher education and the defining principles of our country", Princeton University's president and the University of Pennsylvania's president wrote in a February letter that was signed by almost 50 top university leaders.

It also may "invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved", he said.