U.S. Supreme Court allows broad Trump refugee ban

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court allows broad Trump refugee ban

By Lawrence Hurley and Dan Levine

 

FILE PHOTO - Protesters hold signs against U.S. President Donald Trump's limited travel ban, approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, in New York City, U.S. on June 29, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Penney/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

 

The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.

 

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump's controversial executive order.

 

Trump signed an order on March 6 that banned travellers from six Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The policy suspended travel to the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, and locked out most refugees.

 

U.S. courts have since limited the scope of that order. In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban.

 

The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.

 

However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump's refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.

 

The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.

 

A representative for the Hawaii attorney general, who challenged the administration in court, could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

Earlier on Tuesday, Hawaii said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still "bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country." All the 9th Circuit ruling did is "protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores," the state's lawyers added.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham and Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-13

[khwaibah]

Suck it up butter  cups..

[lovelomsak]

There is still hope for America. Appears there is some form of intelligence in that country Maybe  America can be great again

[LannaGuy]

Wow! to be fair there must be some limits surely?  I'd be surprised if the SC does not back the POTUS right to make such an order. Kids of past transgressors should be 'grandfathered' in though.

[kamahele]

So, the Trump administration will ban those trying to enter the US as refugees which is by far the most difficult way to enter the country taking 18-24 months of investigation before (if) approvals are issued. It only makes sense to those with no knowledge of the immigration system and to racists.

[inThailand]

It's about f....time!

 

How much time and money was wasted on this issue?

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, kamahele said:

So, the Trump administration will ban those trying to enter the US as refugees which is by far the most difficult way to enter the country taking 18-24 months of investigation before (if) approvals are issued. It only makes sense to those with no knowledge of the immigration system and to racists.

Plus a temporary ban issued on March 6 so they could improve the vetting system. I would presume that improvement has been made by now?

[Jonnapat]

3 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

There is still hope for America. Appears there is some form of intelligence in that country Maybe  America can be great again

Delusional.More such Supreme Court decisions favouring Trump can be expected by this now right wing establishment. Such protectionism is not a good sign of things to come. Smacks of British Brexiteers 

[sawadeeken]

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

It's about f....time!

 

How much time and money was wasted on this issue?

I'm with You...................

This is the ONE and maybe ONLY move where I will 'back-up' Trump................ After what i see of muslim refugees (I intentionally did not capitalize muslim) doing in countries around the world, I am convinced that they have no interest in 'joining us' and fitting-in and working for 'Our common goals'........ 

They are 'SELFISH' and only want what they want and 'they' want us to bend to their 'wants'.......

ENOUGH............. Close the door USA...........

I must add however that since I live in California, I have no problems with the 'Hispanic' and see them work good.......... Keep them and the illegal Asians as well....... Good workers mostly...

One reservation to above....... Hispanic and Asian 'gangs' must go............

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by sawadeeken
remove quote site

[sawadeeken]

12 minutes ago, Jonnapat said:

Delusional.More such Supreme Court decisions favouring Trump can be expected by this now right wing establishment. Such protectionism is not a good sign of things to come. Smacks of British Brexiteers 

Your personal opinion........ of course........ we all have 'our' as well................... It's your (and our) 'right'

[simple1]

50 minutes ago, sawadeeken said:

I'm with You...................

This is the ONE and maybe ONLY move where I will 'back-up' Trump................ After what i see of muslim refugees (I intentionally did not capitalize muslim) doing in countries around the world, I am convinced that they have no interest in 'joining us' and fitting-in and working for 'Our common goals'........ 

They are 'SELFISH' and only want what they want and 'they' want us to bend to their 'wants'.......

ENOUGH............. Close the door USA...........

I must add however that since I live in California, I have no problems with the 'Hispanic' and see them work good.......... Keep them and the illegal Asians as well....... Good workers mostly...

One reservation to above....... Hispanic and Asian 'gangs' must go............

 

Currently the US has an annual refugee intake allocation of 50,000 p.a. There are 57 Muslim majority countries, if you're a US national surely you understand the current restrictions only applies to nationals from six Muslim majority countries. The Trump Administration has not restricted entry for Muslims who originate from the countries that are the the main source of Islamist ideology promoting Jihadi violence e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Edited September 13, 2017 by simple1

[jackh]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

Currently the US has an annual refugee intake allocation of 50,000 p.a. There are 57 Muslim majority countries, if you're a US national surely you understand the current restrictions only applies to nationals from six Muslim majority countries. The Trump Administration has not restricted entry for Muslims who originate from the countries that are the the main source of Islamist ideology promoting Jihadi violence e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Have patience. I am confident Trump has them all in his crosshairs. 

[Scott]

There was never any doubt that the President would have at least a partial win on this one and that is what he got, a partial win.   The Executive branch has very broad discretionary power in the area of immigration.   The Congress sets the number of immigrants to be allowed in and the Executive branch chooses the number to be allowed as refugees.   This number was reduced from 100,000 by the previous administration to 50,000 by Trump.   The number of refugees is a part of the total immigration numbers, not an addition to it.   So the number of people entering the US will not change.

 

The countries in question had been put under very restrictive measures by the previous administration and a much more carefully wording of his Executive Order -- or no order at all, just a directive to the State Department, would have been much more effective and avoided the legal challenges.  

[hawker9000]

I was sure there'd finally be some sanity injected into the situation by the recently re-constitutionalized Supreme Court.  If Trump would just get busy and start filling those federal judgeships with qualified jurists (who actually acknowledge their responsibilities to the Constitution) instead of political hacks, we wouldn't have to waste so much time on liberal agenda-driven issues like this.

Edited September 13, 2017 by hawker9000

[simple1]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

I was sure there'd finally be some sanity injected into the situation by the recently re-constitutionalized Supreme Court.  If Trump would just get busy and start filling those federal judgeships with qualified jurists (who actually acknowledge their responsibilities to the Constitution) instead of political hacks, we wouldn't have to waste so much time on liberal agenda-driven issues like this.

Trump has been very busy thoroughly politicising the appointment of judges.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges

[simple1]

7 hours ago, jackh said:

Have patience. I am confident Trump has them all in his crosshairs. 

I am always bemused why some believe Trump's actions will not create retaliatory push back to the overall detriment of the US. 

[MajarTheLion]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

There was never any doubt that the President would have at least a partial win on this one and that is what he got, a partial win.   The Executive branch has very broad discretionary power in the area of immigration.   The Congress sets the number of immigrants to be allowed in and the Executive branch chooses the number to be allowed as refugees.   This number was reduced from 100,000 by the previous administration to 50,000 by Trump.   The number of refugees is a part of the total immigration numbers, not an addition to it.   So the number of people entering the US will not change.

 

The countries in question had been put under very restrictive measures by the previous administration and a much more carefully wording of his Executive Order -- or no order at all, just a directive to the State Department, would have been much more effective and avoided the legal challenges.  

This challenge to Trump has been destined to fail. The law and precedent are very clear:

 

 

The Jimmy Carter days are when I first became politically aware. What Carter did and Trump proposes and has begun doing are legally identical. I don't recall any efforts to stop Jimmy Carter, though certainly concede 40 years was a very long time ago to remember such details.

 

Anyway, you stated it well when you said the president has broad powers in this regard. The arguments I've seen against Trump are silly when one looks at what are clearly broad powers bestowed upon the president regarding immigration issues.

[MajarTheLion]

40 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I am always bemused why some believe Trump's actions will not create retaliatory push back to the overall detriment of the US. 

Push back? For what, exactly? Syrian refugees are a regional problem. There are plenty of wealthy countries nearby who can take ALL of these *refugees* in, where they are a better fit culturally, religiously and politically.

[MajarTheLion]

20 hours ago, stevenl said:

Plus a temporary ban issued on March 6 so they could improve the vetting system. I would presume that improvement has been made by now?

I should hope so. One of the biggest gripes I had with the Obama cartel's standards was their rule that DHS workers couldn't look at what visa applicants were saying on social media as part of their due diligence. That seems incredibly naive at the very least.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325

 

 

[Scott]

20 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

This challenge to Trump has been destined to fail. The law and precedent are very clear:

 

 

The Jimmy Carter days are when I first became politically aware. What Carter did and Trump proposes and has begun doing are legally identical. I don't recall any efforts to stop Jimmy Carter, though certainly concede 40 years was a very long time ago to remember such details.

 

Anyway, you stated it well when you said the president has broad powers in this regard. The arguments I've seen against Trump are silly when one looks at what are clearly broad powers bestowed upon the president regarding immigration issues.

There are significant differences between Carter's ban and Trump's.   Carter's ban was a part of a broader set of sanctions against one country -- not an entire religion.   It also included provisions for exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations.

 

It was designed as a part of the pressure to gain the release of the hostages.    Trump's ban was against a religion and did not, at least initially, provide any provisions for exceptions, and there will almost always be exceptions and extenuating circumstances.  For example, Trump rather quickly learned that the military objected to the ban including Iraq, since many of the people assisting the US gov't efforts were Iraqis and would be in danger unless they were allowed resettlement.    In other words, his ban was counter to the goal of preventing terrorism, as far as the military was concerned.  

[MajarTheLion]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

There are significant differences between Carter's ban and Trump's.   Carter's ban was a part of a broader set of sanctions against one country -- not an entire religion.   It also included provisions for exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations.

 

It was designed as a part of the pressure to gain the release of the hostages.    Trump's ban was against a religion and did not, at least initially, provide any provisions for exceptions, and there will almost always be exceptions and extenuating circumstances.  For example, Trump rather quickly learned that the military objected to the ban including Iraq, since many of the people assisting the US gov't efforts were Iraqis and would be in danger unless they were allowed resettlement.    In other words, his ban was counter to the goal of preventing terrorism, as far as the military was concerned.  

Yes, I've read similar arguments. That is why I am very specific with my words. Legally, both actions are/were identical. Each president targeted a class of immigrant to ban from coming to the country, which US Code 1182 specifically allows for. I see no stipulations under the law other than the president feeling it is necessary for the nation's interests. Presumably, both Carter and Trump were doing what they felt are in the nation's best interests.

 

I would also go further and state that we should not grant Constitutional rights to people not even in this country. For example, in the US, we would never say Muslims can't go to ____________. The legal arguments I have read set aside the relevant law noted above and assign anti-discrimination arguments where, IMHO (and I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just another citizen with my own principles) the president's authority on immigration is supreme.

[Scott]

17 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yes, I've read similar arguments. That is why I am very specific with my words. Legally, both actions are/were identical. Each president targeted a class of immigrant to ban from coming to the country, which US Code 1182 specifically allows for. I see no stipulations under the law other than the president feeling it is necessary for the nation's interests. Presumably, both Carter and Trump were doing what they felt are in the nation's best interests.

 

I would also go further and state that we should not grant Constitutional rights to people not even in this country. For example, in the US, we would never say Muslims can't go to ____________. The legal arguments I have read set aside the relevant law noted above and assign anti-discrimination arguments where, IMHO (and I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just another citizen with my own principles) the president's authority on immigration is supreme.

How you perceive it and how the legal-eagles perceive the two are apparently different.  

 

 

[SABloke]

Just now, Scott said:

There are significant differences between Carter's ban and Trump's.   Carter's ban was a part of a broader set of sanctions against one country -- not an entire religion.   It also included provisions for exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations.

 

It was designed as a part of the pressure to gain the release of the hostages.    Trump's ban was against a religion and did not, at least initially, provide any provisions for exceptions, and there will almost always be exceptions and extenuating circumstances.  For example, Trump rather quickly learned that the military objected to the ban including Iraq, since many of the people assisting the US gov't efforts were Iraqis and would be in danger unless they were allowed resettlement.    In other words, his ban was counter to the goal of preventing terrorism, as far as the military was concerned.  

"Trump's ban was against a religion"

 

Was it? I must have missed the part where he banned travel from Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - you know the countries with by far the greatest Muslim populations in the world and totaling 750 million in all. To put it in perspective, Bangladesh has twice the Muslim population of Iran. 

 

So I ask again, where was this ban on a religion that you speak of?

[Scott]

I am not going to get into the discussion.   That is for members, but here is what he called for:  "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

 

Part of the court challenges were based on what he said.

 

 

[simple1]

6 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Push back? For what, exactly? 

review your post

[hawker9000]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

How you perceive it and how the legal-eagles perceive the two are apparently different.  

 

 

Yes, especially the "legal-eagles" that are Obama appointees. Fortunately, the means is at hand to start getting past that judicial debacle...   SCOTUS was/is just the beginning.

 

 

[hawker9000]

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

Trump has been very busy thoroughly politicising the appointment of judges.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges

You confuse Trump politicizing things with a widely recognized left wing rag's actually doing it.   Nice try.

 

[simple1]

1 minute ago, hawker9000 said:

You confuse Trump politicizing things with a widely recognized left wing rag's actually doing it.   Nice try.

 

The article is correct

[iReason]

7 hours ago, SABloke said:

"Trump's ban was against a religion"

Was it? I must have missed the part where he banned travel from Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - you know the countries with by far the greatest Muslim populations in the world and totaling 750 million in all. To put it in perspective, Bangladesh has twice the Muslim population of Iran. 

 

So I ask again, where was this ban on a religion that you speak of?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by iReason

[hawker9000]

Just now, simple1 said:

The article is correct

Oh, boo-hoo.  The article tries to light a partisan fire by enumerating Obama's appointments to this point in his term compared with Trump's.   Big deal.   Obama appointees have created judicial chaos in the courts, and Trump is moving to undo that damage, damage which is obstructing needed immigration policy revision (for instance) and restore some badly needed and overdue constitutional sanity.  It's his job and definitely part of why he was elected, and he's doing it. 

 

But by numbly bleeting that "the article is correct", you're deflecting.  I said it was the magazine doing the "politicizing" that simple1 was blaming on Trump, and I'M CORRECT!