U.S. court lets Trump travel ban go partially into effect

[webfact]

U.S. court lets Trump travel ban go partially into effect

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: People walk out after the U.S. Supreme Court granted parts of the Trump administration's emergency request to put his travel ban into effect immediately while the legal battle continues, in Washington, U.S., June 26, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court in California on Monday let President Donald Trump's latest travel ban go partially into effect, ruling the government can bar entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries with no connections to the United States.

 

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially granted a Trump administration request to block at least temporarily a judge's ruling that had put the new ban on hold. Trump's ban was announced on Sept. 24 and replaced two previous versions that had been impeded by federal courts.

 

The action means the ban will apply to people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad who do not have connections to the United States.

 

Those connections are defined as family relationships and "formal, documented" relationships with U.S.-based entities such as universities and resettlement agencies. Those with family relationships that would allow entry include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

 

The ruling does not affect people from the two other countries listed in Trump's ban, North Korea and Venezuela.

 

"We are reviewing the court's order and the government will begin enforcing the travel proclamation consistent with the partial stay. We believe that the proclamation should be allowed to take effect in its entirety," Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said.

 

The state of Hawaii, which sued to block the restrictions, argued that federal immigration law did not give Trump the authority to impose them on six of those countries. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu ruled last month that Hawaii was likely to succeed with that argument.

 

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said the court's decision tracked what the Supreme Court said in June when it partially revived Trump's second travel ban, which has now expired.

 

"I'm pleased that family ties to the U.S., including grandparents, will be respected," Chin added.

 

Trump issued his first travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries in January, just a week after he took office, and then issued a revised one after the first was blocked by the courts. The second one expired in September after a long court fight and was replaced with another revised version.

 

Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Muslim militants. As a candidate, Trump had promised "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

 

Critics of the travel ban in its various iterations call it a "Muslim ban" that violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion.

 

The 9th Circuit is due to hear oral arguments in the case on Dec. 6. In a parallel case from Maryland, a judge also ruled against the Trump administration and partially blocked the ban from going into effect.

 

An appeal in the Maryland case is being heard on Dec. 8 by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several advocacy groups, including the International Refugee Assistance Project.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-14

[Boon Mee]

That is a good thing. The need to keep evil-doers from entering the United States has never been greater. 

[Langsuan Man]

12 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

That is a good thing. The need to keep evil-doers from entering the United States has never been greater. 

Too bad all the evil-doers so far are already there.........

[hawker9000]

4 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

Too bad all the evil-doers so far are already there.........

'Only half-wits who might think so.............

 

 

[Langsuan Man]

19 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

'Only half-wits who might think so.............

 

 

Quote

“[E]very jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident,” New America reports. During that time period, more than 80 percent of individuals who were charged with or died engaging in jihadist terrorism or related activities inside the United States have been U.S. citizens or permanent residents (the tally also includes Americans accused of engaging in such activity abroad). Many have been second-generation immigrants: The Orlando nightclub attacker, for instance, was a U.S. citizen and son of Afghan immigrants. One of the San Bernardino shooters was a U.S. citizen and son of Pakistani immigrants; the other, Tashfeen Malik, was a Pakistani national and conditional U.S. permanent resident who came to the United States on a fiancee visa.

source: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

[Andaman Al]

On 11/14/2017 at 7:04 AM, Boon Mee said:

That is a good thing. The need to keep evil-doers from entering the United States has never been greater. 

A better thing for the world would be to build the wall - all the way around !  and keep all the evil-doers from ever exiting the United States.

[mrwebb8825]

The best thing would be to remove all power from everyone except the Supreme Court when it comes to anything done by the federal government. As it stands, if the 9th says yes and the 4th says no then it's ALL been a big waste of time and taxpayer money and will go to the SC anyway. 

Cutting Hawaii loose wouldn't hurt the US economy in the slightest.