U.S. Supreme Court breathes new life into Trump's travel ban

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court breathes new life into Trump's travel ban

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

 

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

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory.

 

The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked key parts of a March 6 executive order that Trump had said was needed to prevent terrorism in the United States, allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties such as family or business to the United States. [http://tmsnrt.rs/2seb3bb]

 

The court issued its order on the last day of its current term and agreed to hear oral arguments during its next term starting in October so it can decide finally whether the ban is lawful in a major test of presidential powers.

 

In a statement, Trump called the high court's action "a clear victory for our national security," saying the justices allowed the travel suspension to become largely effective.

 

"As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive," Trump added.

 

Trump's March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures. The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.

 

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But challengers said no one from the affected countries had carried out attacks in the United States.

 

Federal courts said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Critics called it a discriminatory "Muslim ban."

 

Ahmed al-Nasi, an official in Yemen’s Ministry of Expatriate Affairs, voiced disappointment.

 

"We believe it will not help in confronting terrorism and extremism, but rather will increase the feeling among the nationals of these countries that they are all being targeted, especially given that Yemen is an active partner of the United States in the war on terrorism and that there are joint operations against terrorist elements in Yemen," he said.

 

Groups that challenged the ban, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that most people from the affected countries seeking entry to the United States would have the required connections. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could.

 

"It's going to be very important for us over this intervening period to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a back door into implementing the full-scale Muslim ban that it's been seeking to implement," said Omar Jadwat, an ACLU lawyer.

 

During the 2016 presidential race, Trump campaigned for "a total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States. The travel ban was a signature policy of Trump's first few months as president.

 

'BONA FIDE RELATIONSHIP'

 

In an unusual unsigned decision, the Supreme Court on Monday said the travel ban will go into effect "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

 

A lack of a clearly defined relationship would bar from entry people from the six countries and refugees with no such ties.

 

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, who successfully challenged the ban in lower courts, said that students from affected countries due to attend the University of Hawaii would still be able to do so.

 

Both bans were to partly go into effect 72 hours after the court's decision. The Department of Homeland Security promised clear and sufficient public notice in coordination with the travel industry.

 

Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 one issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts, but not before it caused chaos at airports and provoked numerous protests.

 

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are U.S. permanent residents, known as green card holders. The executive order also made waivers available for a foreign national seeking to enter the United States to resume work or study, visit a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen, or for "significant business or professional obligations." Refugees "in transit" and already approved would have been able to travel to the United States under the executive order.

 

A CONSERVATIVE COURT

 

The case was Trump's first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees. The four liberal justices were silent.

 

Gorsuch was one of the three conservative justices who would have granted Trump's request to put the order completely into effect. Fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have a connection to the United States and those who do not will prove unworkable.

 

"Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote.

 

The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on the government favouring or disfavouring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley. Additional reporting by Andrew Chung and Yeganeh Torbati in Washington and Mohammed Ghobari in Sanaa, Yemen; Editing by Will Dunham and Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-27

[darksidedog]

I'm not quite sure why Donald is hailing this as a victory. They have tightened criteria for visas, but the actual ban has not been approved and will not be looked at again until October. Still, the way things have been going I guess Donald will grab onto any crumb of success he can.

[selftaopath]

He inches toward dictatorship each and everyday.  That is his top priority. I have little confidence in his RussiaReps aka republicans putting America First. 

[lostlink]

Winning!

[ELVIS123456]

Winning and loving it !!!

Edited June 27, 2017 by ELVIS123456
typo

[selftaopath]

20 minutes ago, lostlink said:

Winning!

Yea that's what Putin keeps saying. He's so proud to have "his man" in the U.S. White House.

 

I wonder if Putin also has "dirt" on the RussiaReps aka republicans that condone 45's un-patriotic behavior?

[PremiumLane]

As recent reports have shown that the majority of terrorist incidents in America are perpetrated  by white males, can we have a travel ban on white Christian males? 

[PattayaJames]

6 minutes ago, PremiumLane said:

As recent reports have shown that the majority of terrorist incidents in America are perpetrated  by white males, can we have a travel ban on white Christian males? 

Sure, just get voted President on it first and you are good to go.

[goldenbrwn1]

11 minutes ago, PremiumLane said:

As recent reports have shown that the majority of terrorist incidents in America are perpetrated  by white males, can we have a travel ban on white Christian males? 

I agree on the numbers concerning terrorist incidents. But something different does need to be done in the US. Here in the UK and Europe you see on the news most days how great our policies on extreme Islam has been.  

Edited June 27, 2017 by goldenbrwn1

[jb61]

no one has mentioned that the Supreme Court vote was 9-0 in favor of Trump.

Even obama's appointees who hate Trump voted in favor.

[manarak]

10 minutes ago, jb61 said:

no one has mentioned that the Supreme Court vote was 9-0 in favor of Trump.

Even obama's appointees who hate Trump voted in favor.

I guess this has more to do with safeguarding the government's powers rather than with policy.

The supreme court doesn't want courts to be able to paralyze government action, especially when it comes to security, and I think it's a good thing.

 

Executive decisions should be applied first and then only should the courts get involved, the executive order remaining in place until the supreme court has made a decision.  Otherwise courts could just paralyze government, which is unacceptable in security matters.

 

Regarding travel from these "muslim-majority countries", the thing I don't understand is - people from there need visas anyway?

Why couldn't the government just cancel all visas and make the screening for obtaining new visas a very thorough one with high costs?

For example, applicants must pay 1000 USD or more for a visa and this pays for a complete NSA Facebook, Apple and Google data sweep crossed with foreign local intelligence, done by an intelligence officer of the embassy.

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by manarak

[Dagnabbit]

 

30% of suspected terrorists under investigation by the FBI are refugees.  

 

This is a good result.

[meechai]

4 hours ago, selftaopath said:

He inches toward dictatorship each and everyday.  That is his top priority. I have little confidence in his RussiaReps aka republicans putting America First. 

 

And yet...your location reads Isaan...So you live in Thailand? Under a military Dictatorship but that is ok right?

While you cast stones at a republic 555 yeah classic...

 

[NanLaew]

22 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

30% of suspected terrorists under investigation by the FBI are refugees.  

 

This is a good result.

I see you equate immigrant with refugee.

 

The British were similarly unable to make this precise distinction before they voted for Brexit.

 

Mind how you go there, ok?

[NanLaew]

12 minutes ago, meechai said:

 

And yet...your location reads Isaan...So you live in Thailand? Under a military Dictatorship but that is ok right?

While you cast stones at a republic 555 yeah classic...

 

With regard to his opinion, I would suggest that living under a dictatorship gives one remarkable insight.

 

What's your excuse?

[Grubster]

I see that they will still allow those coming to work to undermine the wages of american workers, They do stick by the rich I guess.

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban

It's a pyrrhic victory.

 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump's March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures.

 A significant but unspecified number of people who would have been barred should still be allowed to enter the US from the identified countries.

The Court won't further rule until October - seven months after the ban was announced. Given that timeline, the proposed 90 and 120-day terms of the ban will have expired before the case is argued before the Supreme Court. So much for imminent danger to national security.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/travel-ban-supreme-court-hands-donald-trump-a-victory-of-sorts-20170626-gwz4x5.html

[WaywardWind]

54 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

30% of suspected terrorists under investigation by the FBI are refugees.  

 

This is a good result.

Your assertion is BS...you should find a better source than Trump.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/refugees-and-terrorism-investigations/

[NanLaew]

16 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

It's a pyrrhic victory.

 

 A significant but unspecified number of people who would have been barred should still be allowed to enter the US from the identified countries.

The Court won't further rule until October - seven months after the ban was announced. Given that timeline, the proposed 90 and 120-day terms of the ban will have expired before the case is argued before the Supreme Court. So much for imminent danger to national security.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/travel-ban-supreme-court-hands-donald-trump-a-victory-of-sorts-20170626-gwz4x5.html

More like he got the crumbs that fell from the Supreme Courts' table.

[Srikcir]

55 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

30% of suspected terrorists under investigation by the FBI are refugees.  

 

This is a good result.

There is yet no result.

 

• The 300 refugees under FBI investigation include individuals from all over the world, not just those from the six Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It is also unknown what percentage of Muslim immigrants are also refugees.
• Department of Homeland Security intelligence report indicates that most foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists radicalize years after they enter the United States. 
• Nearly half of the foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists examined were less than 16 years old when they entered the country and that the majority of foreign-born individuals resided in the United States for more than 10 years before their indictment or death.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/6/jeff-sessions-more-than-300-refugees-involved-in-a/

 

Merely being a "refugee" has not proven to be a reliable marker for a potential terrorist.

 

[NanLaew]

6 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

There is yet no result.

 

• The 300 refugees under FBI investigation include individuals from all over the world, not just those from the six Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It is also unknown what percentage of Muslim immigrants are also refugees.
• Department of Homeland Security intelligence report indicates that most foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists radicalize years after they enter the United States. 
• Nearly half of the foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists examined were less than 16 years old when they entered the country and that the majority of foreign-born individuals resided in the United States for more than 10 years before their indictment or death.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/6/jeff-sessions-more-than-300-refugees-involved-in-a/

 

Merely being a "refugee" has not proven to be a reliable marker for a potential terrorist.

 

How many fatal terror attacks have refugees carried out in the US? None.

 

MOSTLY TRUE: Odds of fatal terror attack in U.S. by a refugee? 3.6 billion to 1

[Grubster]

20 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

How many fatal terror attacks have refugees carried out in the US? None.

 

MOSTLY TRUE: Odds of fatal terror attack in U.S. by a refugee? 3.6 billion to 1

And the odds in countries that are letting them in like France, England, Norway, Sweden, Germany? OOPS the oddsmakers would already be broke.

[NanLaew]

2 minutes ago, Grubster said:

And the odds in countries that are letting them in like France, England, Norway, Sweden, Germany? OOPS the oddsmakers would already be broke.

Deflection... this is about the good ol ' US of A. But if you insist.

 

The bulk of those committing terror acts in Europe are... you are gonna LOVE this... home grown!!!!

 

Just like your own Timothy McVey.

 

Now, here's one for you. What was McVey's publicly stated motivation for his heinous act?

 

Retaliation for the Waco Siege, Ruby Ridge, other government raids and general U.S. foreign policy

 

Careful what y'all wish for now.

[Srikcir]

9 minutes ago, Grubster said:

And the odds in countries that are letting them in like France, England, Norway, Sweden, Germany? OOPS the oddsmakers would already be broke.

I suspect (without confirmed statistics that you also lack) that the thousands of radicalized Europeans that have gone to fight with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria exceeds those that infiltrate into Europe under the guise of a refugee. For now the simple reason may be that ISIL/ISIS is losing its caliphate territory and needs fighters in Syrian and Iraq - not in European nations.

 

[Grubster]

10 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Deflection... this is about the good ol ' US of A. But if you insist.

 

The bulk of those committing terror acts in Europe are... you are gonna LOVE this... home grown!!!!

 

Just like your own Timothy McVey.

 

Now, here's one for you. What was McVey's publicly stated motivation for his heinous act?

 

Retaliation for the Waco Siege, Ruby Ridge, other government raids and general U.S. foreign policy

 

Careful what y'all wish for now.

The bulk of all violence in all nations not at war is internal, is that some sort of surprise since refugees amount to less than one tenth of one percent of the population? Does this mean you should allow those that clearly disagree with your way of life enter your country? Good luck and I hope you will be happy with your muslim neighbor's.

[Grubster]

13 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I suspect (without confirmed statistics that you also lack) that the thousands of radicalized Europeans that have gone to fight with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria exceeds those that infiltrate into Europe under the guise of a refugee. For now the simple reason may be that ISIL/ISIS is losing its caliphate territory and needs fighters in Syrian and Iraq - not in European nations.

 

I'm sure you are correct and I hope we can find a way to stop these home grown muslim influenced people from committing terrorist activities. A good start would be to make sure they do not return after leaving their home country. And letting more muslims in is not a good idea in my opinion.

[selftaopath]

57 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

How many fatal terror attacks have refugees carried out in the US? None.

 

MOSTLY TRUE: Odds of fatal terror attack in U.S. by a refugee? 3.6 billion to 1

I think the U.S. has a better chance of the place being "shot up" by some "downhomebubba".

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

The bulk of all violence in all nations not at war is internal, is that some sort of surprise since refugees amount to less than one tenth of one percent of the population? Does this mean you should allow those that clearly disagree with your way of life enter your country? Good luck and I hope you will be happy with your muslim neighbor's.

No. It means you are either looking the wrong way or the subject matter has become too deep for you.

 

Possibly both.

[Dagnabbit]

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

I see you equate immigrant with refugee.

 

The British were similarly unable to make this precise distinction before they voted for Brexit.

 

Mind how you go there, ok?

I see you jump to wild conclusions. Hope that works out for you.

[selftaopath]

2 hours ago, Grubster said:

The bulk of all violence in all nations not at war is internal, is that some sort of surprise since refugees amount to less than one tenth of one percent of the population? Does this mean you should allow those that clearly disagree with your way of life enter your country? Good luck and I hope you will be happy with your muslim neighbor's.

Terrorists killers pale by comparison to gun toting Americans. This link is informative:

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/