Following months of court disputes, part of Trump’s ban on immigration travel from six mostly Muslim countries has received the go-ahead by the Supreme Court. U.S. President Donald Trump acclaimed the court’s ruling as a “clear victory for our national security.” He reiterated that his main responsibility to the people of America is to ensure their safety. However, the ban is likely to be the onset of yet another round of legal disputes over religious discrimination.
The most important points to note about this prohibition are:
The ban is a limited version of that which was to be put in place by U.S. President’s Trump. It will take effect on Thursday morning, 72 hours after the supreme court ruling on Monday.
The decision by the court exempts refugees and visitor applicants having a “bona fide relationship” with a resident of the US from the ban. The supreme court judges who disagreed with the ruling cited that the standard is impractical as it put the officials in a difficulty of judging whose relationships are bona fide and those whose relationship is not.
Permanent residents and citizens of Canada are still going to be able to travel regularly. On, Monday, the spokesman for the Immigration Ministry said that anyone going to the U.S. should confirm their eligibility and documentation early enough.
Who Is Affected?
According to the ruling, the immigrants who are going to be affected by the ban are those from the six Majority-Muslim countries as stated by President Trump’s order; they include Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from these countries will be barred from acquiring U.S Visas. The ruling also suspends admission of refugees to U.S. from across the globe.
The travel restrictions are expected to be in operation for 90 days, while the ban of refugees from across the world would be in operation for 120 days. The government reiterated the fact the new regulation would take effect 72 hours after the Supreme Court ruling allowing the ban.
Who is “Bona fide” and Who decides who’s “bona fide”?
According to the ruling by the supreme court, foreigners who have a “sound claim of a bona fide relationship” with an entity or a resident of the U.S. are exempted from the ban.
Some of the examples listed by the supreme court ruling as being eligible for consideration as “bona fide relationships” include: students enrolled in schools in the U.S.A., close relatives of U.S.A. residents or workers who have accepted jobs at U.S. based companies. However, the court ruling cautions that relationships created with the aim of avoiding the ban as not being eligible for the exemption. It is unclear which criteria would be used to determine the genuineness of relationships.
The supreme court ruling gives much of interpretation for immigration and customs officials on what comprises a genuine U.S. based “entity” and whose relationship is a legitimate “bona fide relationship.” Three dissenting supreme court judges cautioned that the “bona fide” standard is impractical and would only set off a flood of litigation.
How the ban came about?
The ban was part of President Trump election promises issued during the 2016 election. He had initially promised a “total and complete shutdown” of immigration of people from Muslim countries into the U.S. True to his word, once he took the oath of office in January, an executive order has issued an order barring Muslim immigrant into the U.S.
In March, a second order was released by the president’s administration comprising an added section excluding Iraq from the list of terror-prone Muslim countries whose citizens were denied visas. The law also removed a section that had aimed at prohibiting access to the United States by the Syrian refugees at the expense of Christian immigrants. In response to that, a federal district judge stopped the section of the ban affecting travelers from the shortlisted Muslim countries. Also, a judge from Hawaii also suspended that section in addition to the portion disturbing refugee programs.
Both the district court and Court of Appeal judges disputed orders of March and January. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal decision back in May said that the second order “in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”
The travel ban has also been the main point of dispute between the president and Civil rights groups which argue that the ruling is driven by illegitimate discernment against Muslims.
The 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco also added by saying the order does not conform to the federal immigration law, including an embargo on nationality-based victimization. The court also placed on hold those portions of the ruling that would banish all refugees out of U.S for 120days and then cut the government expenditure on refugees by more than half.
Following these impediments, President Trump’s administration went ahead to bring the issue to the Supreme Court which, on June 26, granted the government the go-ahead on the implementation of the ban save for “bona fide relationship” limitations. The administration is yet to review the ruling before final official report concerning permitted visas and refugees ban kicks in.
Do you agree with the supreme court on partial implementation of the embargo, save for “bona fide relationship” restrictions?
Should Trump’s administration go ahead with implementation of the ban?