Trump's revised travel ban dealt first court setback

[rooster59]

Trump's revised travel ban dealt first court setback

By Steve Gorman

 

Immigration activists, including members of the DC Justice for Muslims Coalition, rally against the Trump administration's new ban against travelers from six Muslim-majority nations, outside of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection headquarters in Washington, U.S., March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Eric Thayer

 

(Reuters) - A federal judge in Wisconsin dealt the first legal blow to President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on Friday, barring enforcement of the policy to deny U.S. entry to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee already granted asylum in the United States.

 

The temporary restraining order, granted by U.S. District Judge William Conley in Madison, applies only to the family of the Syrian refugee, who brought the case anonymously to protect the identities of his wife and daughter, still living in the war-torn Syrian city of Aleppo.

But it represents the first of several challenges brought against Trump's newly amended executive order, issued on March 6 and due to go into effect on March 16, to draw a court ruling in opposition to its enforcement.

Conley, chief judge of the federal court in Wisconsin's western district and an appointee of former President Barack Obama, concluded the plaintiff "has presented some likelihood of success on the merits" of his case and that his family faces "significant risk of irreparable harm" if forced to remain in Syria.

The plaintiff, a Sunni Muslim, fled Syria to the United States in 2014 to "escape near-certain death" at the hands of sectarian military forces fighting the Syrian government in Aleppo, according to his lawsuit.

He subsequently obtained asylum for his wife and their only surviving child, a daughter, and their application had cleared the security vetting process and was headed for final processing when it was halted by Trump's original travel ban on Jan. 27.

That executive order sought to ban admission to the United States of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq - for 120 days and to suspend entry of all refugees indefinitely.

The original travel ban, which caused widespread chaos and protests at airports when first implemented, was rescinded after the state of Washington won a nationwide federal court order blocking further enforcement of the policy.

The modified executive order reduced the number of excluded counties - removing Iraq from the list - and lifted the indefinite refugee travel ban for Syrians. But opponents from several states have gone to court seeking to halt its implementation as well.

"The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the original executive order, and the revised executive order," Conley wrote in his decision. "As the order applies to the plaintiff here, however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts."

In a related development on Friday, the federal judge in Seattle who imposed a nationwide injunction on enforcement of the original travel ban refused a request to apply that order to the revised policy, saying that lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-11

 

[NoBrainer]

"his family faces "significant risk of irreparable harm" if forced to remain in Syria"

 

Who is forcing them to remain in Syria? What is wrong with the bleeding heart liberals in the US?

Nobody is forcing him or his family to stay in Syria. There are thousands of other places around the world that they could go to.

 

Wake up America, before your country is turned into another Syria. I'm not sure why you haven't noticed the pattern yet, where

every country invaded by Muslims ends up being destroyed to the same extent as the place they destroyed before they came.

 

It is a pattern that is easy to see. Take the blinders off and get a taste of reality.

 

And who said that every country has to be compassionate? Where is that written?

 

Most of the Middle East doesn't look to compassionate from where i'm standing, so why should the west care. Let these people sort out their own

problems on their territory. They started the problems in the first place so let them solve them as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by NoBrainer

[simple1]

17 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

<snip>

Nobody is forcing him to stay in Syria. They started the problems in the first place so let them solve them as well.

 

 

Try comprehending the OP before posting rubbish

I suggest the Court has the info to make a judgement call as to the circumatances of the man's family, not you

The rest of you post is the usual rabid right wing rant against all Muslims which is in breach of forum rules

 

[yellowboat]

President Trump, an expert on the 2nd amendment, seems to have trouble with rest of the US Constitution.  Perhaps he should just focus on jobs and the economy, and let the border patrol do their job.

[dibley69]

So the gutless little man ran away 3 years ago leaving his beloved wife and kid so he could "escape near-certain death" at the hands of sectarian military forces fighting the Syrian government in Aleppo".

[simple1]

12 minutes ago, dibley69 said:

So the gutless little man ran away 3 years ago leaving his beloved wife and kid so he could "escape near-certain death" at the hands of sectarian military forces fighting the Syrian government in Aleppo".

Exactly what would it have achieved for the guy to stay in Aleppo and be murdered?  Sectarian military forces could be Assad's militias who are know for war crimes, to the likes of al Nusra. Without knowing the detail one would assume the family only had sufficient funds for the person under direct threat to get out, all else is conjecture. 

 

Sneering commentary from someone not knowing the facts, whilst living in the safety of Marbella, is beneath contempt.

[darksidedog]

I think you are all missing the point. Trumps new and well thought out ban has been struck down by a court. AGAIN. Albeit to date, only on a single case.

This time though, before it has even commenced.

Donald needs to understand that banning people because of religion is unconstitutional, regardless of how you dress it up.

[mtls2005]

While this travel ban is somewhat temporary (90 days, but probably easily renewable), it is said to potentially impact the U.S.A.'s bids for the 2024 Olympics and the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

[simple1]

3 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I think you are all missing the point. Trumps new and well thought out ban has been struck down by a court. AGAIN. Albeit to date, only on a single case.

This time though, before it has even commenced.

Donald needs to understand that banning people because of religion is unconstitutional, regardless of how you dress it up.

Understand currently there are three hearings scheduled , one for the individual in the OP on 21 March. The other more general hearings on 15th March for Maryland and Hawaii.

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/11/revised-trump-travel-ban-gets-first-legal-blow

[ilostmypassword]

9 hours ago, dibley69 said:

So the gutless little man ran away 3 years ago leaving his beloved wife and kid so he could "escape near-certain death" at the hands of sectarian military forces fighting the Syrian government in Aleppo".

Better that he stayed there so his wife could be a widow and his child halfway to being an orphan?