Must Read U.S. top court backs Trump on travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations

[webfact]

U.S. top court backs Trump on travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations

By Lawrence Hurley

 

Naomi Lien,10, is comforted by Pastor Seth Kaper-Dale as she they react with other immigration rights proponents outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the Court upheld U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries, in Washington, U.S., June 26, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed Donald Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency, upholding his travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries and rejecting the argument that it represented unconstitutional religious discrimination.

 

The 5-4 ruling, with the conservative justices in the majority and the liberal justices dissenting, ended a fierce fight in the courts over whether the policy amounted to an unlawful Muslim ban, while also confirming broad presidential powers over immigration and national security policy.

 

Trump quickly claimed "profound vindication" after lower courts had blocked his travel ban announced in September, as well as two prior versions, in legal challenges brought by the state of Hawaii and others. Trump has called the travel ban necessary to protect the United States against attacks by Islamic militants.

 

The ruling, denounced by civil rights groups and Democrats as well as protesters outside the courthouse, empowered Trump at the time when he is embroiled in controversy over his approach towards illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexican border. Trump last week retreated on his administration's practice of separating the children of immigrants from their parents when families were detained illegally entering the United States.

 

The court held that the challengers had failed to show that the travel ban violated either U.S. immigration law or the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on the government favouring one religion over another.

 

In remarks at the White House, Trump hailed "a tremendous victory for the American people and for our Constitution."

 

"We have to be tough, and we have to be safe, and we have to be secure. At a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country," the Republican president said, referring in a statement to "this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians."

 

The ban prohibits entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The Supreme Court allowed it to go largely into effect in December while the legal challenge continued.

 

Senator Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "Despite today's ruling, turning away those fleeing horrific violence and persecution or to discriminate against people based on nationality and religion continues to be as un-American as ever."

 

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that Trump's administration "has set forth a sufficient national security justification" to prevail. "We express no view on the soundness of the policy," Roberts added.

 

The ruling affirmed broad presidential discretion over who is allowed to enter the United States. Trump could potentially add more countries to the ban.

 

Roberts said Trump's actions suspending entry of certain classes of people were "well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other president - the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular president in promulgating an otherwise valid proclamation."

 

The challengers had argued that the policy was motivated by Trump's enmity towards Muslims and urged courts to take into account his inflammatory comments during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump as a candidate called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

 

'STARK PARALLELS'

In a dissent she read in the courtroom, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited "stark parallels" with the court's now-discredited 1944 decision that upheld U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two. Sotomayor also described various statements Trump made on the campaign trail.

 

"Taking all the evidence together, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was driven primarily by anti-Muslim animus," Sotomayor added.

 

In the ruling, Roberts officially repudiated the 1944 internment decision and rejected any comparison between the cases, saying that the war-era practice was "objectively unlawful and outside the scope of presidential authority."

 

Roberts said it was "wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facial neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission."

 

Chad initially was on the list of countries targeted by Trump that was announced in September, but he removed it on April 10. Iraq and Sudan were on earlier versions of the ban. Venezuela and North Korea also were targeted in the current policy. Those restrictions were not challenged in court.

 

"The ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's great failures," said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the ban.

 

The travel ban was one of Trump's signature hardline immigration policies that have been a central part of his presidency and "America First" approach. Trump issued his first version just a week after taking office, though it was quickly halted by the courts.

 

Trump also has moved to rescind protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into the United States illegally as children, acted against states and cities that protect illegal immigrants, ended protected status for certain immigrants in the country for decades, intensified deportation efforts and pursued limits on legal immigration.

 

The ruling means that most people seeking to enter the United States from the affected countries will need to navigate an opaque waiver process.

 

"If they are allowed to have this ban, what will they try next?" asked Mohamad Mashta, a Syrian who joined one of the lawsuits challenging the ban. Mashta is a permanent U.S. resident working as an engineer in Ohio whose wife, also Syrian, was able to obtain a visa after the ban was initially blocked.

 

With the policy in place, the number of people from the affected countries able to obtain visas has plummeted.

 

[See graphic: https://tmsnrt.rs/2tyHpRa]

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati, Makini Brice and Robert Iafolla; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-27

[Boon Mee]

Definitely a win for common sense. 

[Andaman Al]

6 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Definitely a win for common sense. 

The common sense would be looking at the judgement.  5-4   

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed, along with reply. 

[Credo]

It only took 3 tries to get one that a conservative court would uphold and it's hardly a major win.   Visas will still be issued on a case-by-case basis, which is basically what is done in the issuing of most visas from anywhere.   

 

 

[rudi49jr]

This is not at all a partizan ruling, is it?

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, Credo said:

It only took 3 tries to get one that a conservative court would uphold and it's hardly a major win.   Visas will still be issued on a case-by-case basis, which is basically what is done in the issuing of most visas from anywhere.   

 

 

Yes. But despite that I think it may be legally right, but it is morally wrong.

[Emster23]

Not unexpected  outcome considering Republicans used bully tactics to load the court in their xenophobic favor

[zaphod reborn]

The Hawaii AG should not have relied on religious discrimination to overturn the ban, as the 3rd rewrite of the ban had removed the religious test (Indonesia , SA not included, Venezuela and N. Korea included).  They should have tested the  sufficiency of the "national security" justification, which is a Congressional creation, and is also used as presidential authority for the imposition of tarriffs.

[pedro01]

2 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

The common sense would be looking at the judgement.  5-4   

Yes - that is a win.

[tweedledee2]

1 hour ago, Emster23 said:

Not unexpected  outcome considering Republicans used bully tactics to load the court in their xenophobic favor

Previous Democratic administrations haven't done that?

[Tug]

On principal I’m uncomfortable with it I am by far not a scholar but it just seems wrong according to our constitution 

[Krataiboy]

Love him or hate him, Trump clearly has woken up to the dangers of creeping Islamisation, a phenomenon which is slowly but surely turning Europe into Eurabia.

 

Hopefully, his lead will be followed by May, Merkyl, Macron and other EU luminaries infected with and paralysed by Islamophilia and political correctness.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Krataiboy

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, tweedledee2 said:

Previous Democratic administrations haven't done that?

No, there was no previous boycott from Congress to appoint a new judge.

[Jonnapat]

4 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Definitely a win for common sense. 

Common sense? Republicans blocked Obama's choice for Supreme Court for 12 months opening the door for years of decisions backing up Trump and the right wing.

Common sense? Wait to see in years to come.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

The common sense would be looking at the judgement.  5-4   

A win is a win, regardless of the margin. That's democracy in action.

 

The constitution is clear- POTUS has authority on immigration.

The "expected to" justices voted against.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The ruling, denounced by civil rights groups and Democrats as well as protesters outside the courthouse

Ironic then that the protester in the photo is referring to Indonesia, which is not in the travel ban, despite being a Muslim majority country.

Edited June 27, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[mtls2005]

9 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Definitely a win for common sense. 

 

Yes, if only because the court finally rejected Korematsu vs. United States after 74 years.

 

Korematsu was raised in dissenting opinions. The majority opinion stated that Korematsu did not apply at all to the present case, but explicitly stated that "The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under the Constitution.'

 

Perhaps in another 74 years, a subsequent SCOTUS will correct today's error, assuming there is a SCOTUS after Trump's "reign".

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Yes, if only because the court finally rejected Korematsu vs. United States after 74 years.

 

Korematsu was raised in dissenting opinions. The majority opinion stated that Korematsu did not apply at all to the present case, but explicitly stated that "The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under the Constitution.'

 

Perhaps in another 74 years, a subsequent SCOTUS will correct today's error, assuming there is a SCOTUS after Trump's "reign".

Thanks, had to google that one.

[MyFriend You]

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes. But despite that I think it may be legally right, but it is morally wrong.

Yep, try that in a federal court and see how far it gets you.

[Trouble]

Kind of amazing that the posts on thread relating to the situation in Sweden are mostly about the excessive immigration by Muslims and the problems associated with the migration their and to other European countries, but in this thread many against the Supreme Court ruling and need to vet Muslims first.  The picture shows a girl with a sign about deporting persecuted Indonesian refugees.  The ruling had nothing to do with Indonesia as it wasn't even on the list of countries.  Seems it's so easy to get people out of the woodwork to protest these days.  Everyone has a grievance about something.  

 

The whole immigration issue is not going to be solved soon.  Unfortunately it is probably too late for the USA and most of Europe as the flood gates have been open so long that the dynamics of the population has been changed forever. It's not just about Muslims. There are so many minority ethnic groups now,  all wanting to retain their ethnic identity that it has forever fragmented the US and Europe.  No one has anything in common with their neighbor anymore.  It's all leading to we and they.  Unfortunately the liberals who have allowed all this to happen believe they are achieving some kind of utopia.  The more unfortunate thing is they a dooming their children to societies where the standard of living will gradually erode under the weight of the taxes and services needed to keep the societies afloat. 

[bushdoctor]

19 hours ago, Emster23 said:

Not unexpected  outcome considering Republicans used bully tactics to load the court in their xenophobic favor

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday his intention to retire from the Supreme Court. This allows Trump to pick yet another Supreme Court Justice and will impact the court for years to come.

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, TunnelRat69 said:

Yep, try that in a federal court and see how far it gets you.

As I said, legally right. There is more to life than that though.

[radiochaser]

"STARK PARALLELS'

In a dissent she read in the courtroom, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited "stark parallels" with the court's now-discredited 1944 decision that upheld U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two."  i.e., the current supreme court justices, found that the internment was illegal, I would guess.  

I don't understand why the internment of American citizens in U.S. prison camps during WWII has anything to do with this decision.   

The decision to place "Americans" into prison camps, based on their ancestry/race was an illegitimate act, by a democrat president and was supported primarily by supreme court judges that were appointed by the same democrat president that decided to commit those American citizens to the internment camps!  American citizens that committed no criminal act against the United States.

 

Prohibiting the entry of foreigners into the United States from countries that have a strong presence of terrorists, until that immigrant has been vetted and cleared of being associated with known terrorist groups is a legal privilege of any president of the United States. 

 

Those immigrants, desiring to move to the United States, are after all, not citizens of the United States and do not have the "right" to enter the United States.  The entry of immigrants into the United States is governed by and granted by the immigration laws of the United States allowing that entry.  

However, again, the interment of "American" citizens based exclusively on their ancestry/race is, in my and other people's opinions, some with much more legal training and education than I, was an illegal act committed against U.S. citizens by a democrat president and supported by democrat supreme court justices!  And that has nothing, that I an currently aware of, to do with requiring extreme scrutiny of those immigrants that desire to enter the United States, if there is a need to do so! 

The internment of American citizens in prison camps during WWII, I believe,  was all done without legal due process!