More confusion after Supreme Court rules on travel ban

Share

Immigration lawyers said they believe that visas already issued to travelers from the six countries will probably still be considered valid for entry into the U.S. But for those who are seeking a visa from here on in, there are many unknowns.

"Certainly in the case of refugees, this order will have a tragic toll on those who have fled for their lives and played by our rules to find refuge in the United States".

The State Department vowed to keep travelers and travel industry partners informed as it implements the order, and to keep the US Refugee Admissions Program "apprised of changes as they take effect".

By the time the court has scheduled to take up the case in October, the issue should be moot.

Although the decision of the Supreme Court was per curiam, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by justices Samuel Alito and Neal Gorsuch, added an opinion in which he expressed his view that the executive order should have been upheld in its entirety.

Those in dissent voiced concern that the stay might prove unworkable and that it might tie the EO up in the courts.

This means those with no "bona fide" United States ties can be barred from entry if they come from any of the six Muslim-majority countries subject to the ban.

The ruling invites "a flood of litigation", Thomas writes.

The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated part of Trump's travel ban, allowing certain parts to go into effect. It also ignores the almost-unanimous rejection of the Muslim ban by lower courts due to its religious intolerance and racial animus. But this court based its ruling on statuary grounds, saying Trump had exceeded his lawful authority.

Iran warns USA against 'dangerous' Syria escalation
The White House statement on Monday night was made without forewarning and caught State Department officials by surprise. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price".

- A foreign national who seeks to enter the United States to live with a family member, such as a spouse or mother-in-law.

The original legal argument for the ban was that it was temporary in order to implement better vetting procedures.

Q What about refugees coming from places like Syria or other war-torn countries?

But rights group said they did not expect chaos this time around.

Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia called the high court's action disappointing.

Protesters wave signs and chant during a demonstration against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, Monday, May 15, 2017, outside a federal courthouse in Seattle.

A copy of the decision by the Supreme Court can be found here. The effect on refugees could be greater because they are less likely to have family, school or business relationships in the United States.

Lavinia Limon, CEO of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, said she was dismayed by the ruling, but insisted that her agency has "an existing relationship with incoming refugees, certified and arranged through the Department of State". Refugees who have some connection to the USA may not be summarily blocked from entry; those who have none may be blocked from entry.

"As president, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm", Trump said in a statement.

Share