Not a final ruling, but justices OK travel ban enforcement

Evarado Alatorre
Diciembre 7, 2017

President Donald Trump's latest travel ban forces families from certain countries to stay apart, so groups in Middle Tennessee that help immigrant families are taking step to fight the ban. The decision was a victory for the administration after its mixed success before the court over the summer, when justices considered and eventually dismissed disputes over the second version. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the government's request.

Monday's action sent a strong signal that the court is likely to uphold the ban on the merits when the case likely returns to the justices in the coming months.

Paez also asked if the indefinite nature of the president's latest proclamation - it doesn't expire, and leaves it up to the president to decide at anytime whether to lift or add travel restrictions - ran afoul of the INA, which says that the president can suspend the entry of foreign nationals "for such period" that he deems necessary.

"As we have said many times in the past, Penn State fully supports all members of its academic community, regardless of their country of origin", said Nick Jones, University provost and executive vice president. The addition of North Korea is mostly symbolic, since the government did not expect to see visitors arriving from that country.

Administration officials described the September 24 order as measured and reasonable.

For now, relatives from eight countries won't be able to reunite with families in the U.S. That finding was again missing from the third travel ban proclamation, Katyal argued. They said USA officials had ample authority to deny entry to foreigners who posed a security risk.

"As promised, the President directed his administration to conduct a thorough and appropriate review of immigration vetting procedures, in place under the previous administration, to ensure that terrorist attacks do not occur on American soil", he said.

More news: Mecklenburg County server held for ransom

People from the affected countries will be categorically refused entry visas unless they have "bona fide" links inside the USA, such as business transactions or close family relationships. They agreed the ban could go into effect in part, but not against those who had close personal or professional ties to a person or an entity in the United States.

Meanwhile, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals are set to hear arguments against the ban later this week, and these challenges could (hopefully) stall the implementation of the ban.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif slammed the USA travel ban on travelers from six mainly Muslim countries in a tweet Monday.

The ruling is a win for the Trump administration after much deliberation and consideration on multiple levels of the court system. "This is just a temporary lifting of the injunction, so it still has to go through the appeals process".

The ban was challenged in separate lawsuits by the state of Hawaii and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said "it's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims".

Otros informes por

Discuta este artículo