What makes Muslim ban 3.0 so dangerous

Two years ago this December, Donald Trump issued his now infamous statement: “Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump has sought to put three different Muslim bans into place, with the last now making its way through the courts.

In a December 4 ruling, the Supreme Court decided to allow Muslim ban 3.0 to be implemented while challenges to its constitutionality make their way through the lower courts. In this, the Supreme Court overturned appellate courts’ earlier decisions to halt its implementation during the appeal process.

To be clear, this decision was not based on the merits of the case or the ban’s constitutionality. Nonetheless, for many Muslims, it indicates that institutionalized Islamophobia isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. In the context of a president and administration that has repeatedly stoked anti-Muslim sentiments, this latest act of state violence is depressingly unsurprising.

Unlike earlier versions of the ban, which initially imposed three-month restrictions on six or seven Muslim-majority countries, version 3.0 indefinitely targets nationals from eight countries. Syrian and Somali nationals are being banned altogether, while nationals from Iran, Libya, Yemen and Chad face a range of restrictions and barriers to entry.

North Korea and Venezuela are also included in the latest ban, as a fig leaf to cover Trump’s expressed intention to target Muslims’ entry to the United States in arguments before the courts.
READ MORE

US SC allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban on 6 Muslim countries

The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

The justices, with two dissenting votes, said that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.

The ban applies to travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have left the lower court orders in place.

The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, will be holding arguments on the legality of the ban this week.

Both courts are dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis, and the Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions "with appropriate dispatch."

Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.
READ MORE

Trump travel ban: Refugees from 11 countries face additional US barriers

The Trump administration will temporarily delay processing of most refugees from 11 countries identified as high-risk, while resuming refugee admissions for other countries, government officials said on Tuesday. Most of the affected countries are in the West Asia and Africa, according to documents seen by Reuters.

The administration also will place on hold a program that allows for family reunification for some refugees resettled in the United States, according to a Trump administration memo seen by Reuters and sent to Congress on Tuesday. The resettling of so-called following-to-join refugees will resume, according to the memo, once screening “enhancements have been implemented.”

US officials said the changes were aimed at protecting US national security, but refugee advocates said they amounted to a de facto ban on refugees from the 11 countries and were unnecessary, since refugees are already heavily vetted.

The changes come at the close of a 120-day ban on most refugees ordered by President Donald Trump to allow a review of vetting processes. The 120 days ended on Tuesday, and Trump issued an executive order allowing the general resumption of the US refugee program.
READ MORE

Trump's travel rules for world: Provide data on travellers or face sanction

The US State Department will require all nations to provide extensive data to help it vet visa applicants and determine whether a traveller poses a terrorist threat, according to a cable obtained by Reuters.

Countries that fail to comply with the new protocols or take steps to do so within 50 days could face travel sanctions.

The cable, sent to all US diplomatic posts on Wednesday, is a summary of a worldwide review of vetting procedures that was required under US President Donald Trump’s revised March 6 executive order that temporarily banned US travel by most citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries.

The memo lays out a series of standards the United States will require of other countries, including that they issue, or have active plans to issue, electronic passports and regularly report lost and stolen passports to INTERPOL.

It also directs nations to provide "any other identity information" requested by Washington for US visa applicants, including biometric or biographic details.

The cable sets out requirements for countries to provide data on individuals it knows or has grounds to believe are terrorists as well as criminal record information.

Further, countries are asked not to block the transfer of information about US-bound travellers to the US government and not to designate people for travel watchlists based solely on their political or religious beliefs.
READ MORE

Trump's travel ban takes effect, doesn't consider grandparents as close family

The Trump administration is all set to partially implement its travel ban against people coming from six Muslim majority nations.

Being enforced from tonight 8 pm (5:30 am IST), officials said the travel ban is being rolled out across the country as part of its effort to prevent people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US.

The move comes after the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the vast majority of the US President's March 6 'Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States' could go into effect.

"As recent events have shown, we are living in a very dangerous time, and the US government needs every available tool to prevent terrorists from entering the country and committing acts of bloodshed and violence. And as the President reiterated following Monday's ruling, his number one responsibility as Commander-in-Chief is to keep the American people safe," said a senior administration official.

Ahead of its implementation, officials hoped to have business as usual at the airports.

"We expect business as usual at the ports of entry starting at 8:00 pm tonight. There have been reports of people who have already indicated that they would like to be there to either cause chaos or to protest. Lawyers have indicated they would like to be at the ports of entry to assist people," a senior administration official said.
READ MORE

Trump's travel ban: Immigration not a one-person show, rules 9th US Court

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against reinstating President Donald Trump's revised executive order limiting travel from six-Muslim majority countries, the media reported.

The ruling on Monday from the three-judge — Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez — panel is yet another stinging loss from a court that similarly refused to reinstate Trump's original executive order on travel in February, reports CNN.

"We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress," the three judges, all appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in the ruling.

"Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show."

The judges cited Trump's latest tweets in the travel ban saga.

"Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the 'countries' that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President's 'travel ban'," the judge wrote.

They also cited White House press secretary Sean Spicer's confirmation that Trump's tweets are "considered official statements by the President of the United States".

On June 6, Trump tweeted: "That's right, we need a travel ban for certain dangerous countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!", reports CNN.

The judges largely affirmed US District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision from March which found the core provisions of the revised executive order likely violated the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavour Muslims, but on slightly different grounds.
READ MORE