wnol.info July 22 2017


CT travelers react to travel ban; Muslim advocacy group issues travel alert

July 22 2017, 10:37 | Van Peters

Supreme Court Could Rule On Travel Ban

151707 full

Today the Supreme Court agreed to review rulings by two lower courts blocking the implementation of President Donald Trump's March 6 executive order, popularly known as the "travel ban".

Travellers with a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity" in the United States are spared from the temporary ban affecting people from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees that the justices on Monday allowed to go partially into effect.

This includes nationals of six countries-Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen-and refugees who do not have a bona fide relationship with a US person or entity. It also ignores the almost-unanimous rejection of the Muslim ban by lower courts due to its religious intolerance and racial animus.

Trump's initial executive order-handed down without warning a week after he took office in January-triggered mayhem at airports in the United States and overseas until it was blocked by the courts less than a week later.

The initial order created chaos and confusion as the Trump administration scrambled to make changes amid backlash as legal USA 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.

Q Does that mean that the President can block everyone from the six countries he identified as risky - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen? But Trump does business in Saudi Arabia, not in the six banned countries. People who already have visas should not be blocked from US airports.

Q Are there still big questions? .

"With many groups, it's clear-cut from the type of visa: Anyone coming in on family visa or employment visa, by their terms it's clear they have a bona fide relationship", he said.

What qualifies as a "bona fide" connection?

Q What about Mr Trump's decision to limit the number of refugees admitted each year to 50,000 people?

Q When does this take effect? .

"It is true that the travel ban is allowed to go into effect, but the Supreme Court substantially narrowed who could be denied entry". "The decision gives some symbolic paper victory to the Trump administration without making any changes on the ground, because it leaves the ban in areas where it has no practical application. and the bet is the case will be moot and the whole thing will be dismissed" when the justices return in October. In other words, EO-2's 90-day travel ban did not begin to run in March, but rather only begins when the courts cease to enjoin it.

Q Is this a final ruling? . Even the "total and complete" Muslim ban he originally proposed was supposed to last only as long as it took to "figure out what is going on", which according to his executive orders means three months. For individuals, a close family relationship is required: A spouse or a mother-in-law would be permitted.

The court tempered its ruling by saying the ban could not be implemented against people who have personal links to the USA, citing the examples of foreign nationals wishing to visit family or students accepted to attend university. However, such nationals will likely be denied entry if they are travelling to the US exclusively for tourism, or if they are attempting to enter the U.S.as refugees with no prior connection to this country, unless they secured the necessary visas before June 26, 2017.

The limited ban will take effect Thursday morning, the State Department said Monday. For instance, an immigration agency can not add foreigners to client lists "and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion".

Justices said they "fully expect" the government to be able to conduct its review within the 90-day span the executive order proposes.

Some lawyers also said the vagueness of the "bona fide" standard was license for the Trump administration to interpret it broadly.

"It is just like a green light to the government to do what it wants to do", said Mr Kiyanoush Razaghi, a Maryland-based immigration attorney who deals with primarily Iranian clients. "Many of these individuals may not have 'bona fide relationships, ' but have strong reasons to look to the United States for protection".

The move is a partial victory for the Trump administration, and marks the first time the high court has weighed in on the issue.

"We could have dozens of these cases between now and September", he added.



Other news