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

US top court okays Trump travel ban enforcement, rejects block on relatives

The US Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that while President Donald Trump's administration can continue to bar refugees from entering the country, officials will have to show greater flexibility in enforcing the accompanying ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority countries.

The Justice Department had asked the high court to stay an order issued last week by a federal district judge in Hawaii who found the administration's definition of close family in allowing exemptions to the travel ban was too narrow, Efe reported.

US District Judge Derrick Watson also said that the government could not prohibit entry by refugees assured of placement in the US by recognized refugee agencies.

The Supreme Court sided with the Justice Department on the refugee question, staying that portion of Watson's decision, but they supported the district judge's finding on the government's exemption criteria.

More broadly, the nine justices declined to rule definitively on the Trump administration's appeal of Watson's ruling, insisting that the case would have to follow the usual course through the federal appellate courts.

Last month, the Supreme Court set aside injunctions issued by federal appellate courts and said that portions of Trump's March 6 executive order could take effect.

That document barred citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days and excluded all refugees for 120 days.
READ MORE

Trump's 'Muslim ban': Prove 'close' family or business ties to get US visa

The Trump administration has set new criteria for visa applicants from six mainly Muslim nations and all refugees that require a "close" family or business tie to the United States.

The move comes after the Supreme Court partially restored President Donald Trump's executive order that was widely criticised as a ban on Muslims.

The new guidelines sent to US embassies and consulates yesterday say that applicants from the six countries must prove a relationship with a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling in the US.

This is according to a State Department cable obtained by the Associated Press.

Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancees or other extended family members are not considered to be close relationships.

Senior officials from the departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security are finalising criteria that visitors from six mostly Muslim must meet to avoid the Trump administration's revived travel ban.

The White House deliberations come as US embassies and consulates await instructions later yesterday on how to implement this week's Supreme Court order that partially reinstated the ban after it was blocked by lower courts. The new measures are expected to be implemented today.

The justices' opinion exempts applicants from the ban if they can prove a "bona fide relationship" with a US person or entity.

Government lawyers must determine how to define such a relationship. The court offered only broad guidelines suggesting it would include a relative, job offer or invitation to lecture in the US.
READ MORE

Tighten security on flights or face total electronics ban: US to airlines

The Homeland Security Department is demanding that airlines around the world step up security measures for international flights bound for the United States or face the possibility of a total electronics ban for planes.

Compliance with the new rules could lead to the lifting of a ban on laptops and other large electronics already in place for airlines flying to the United States from 10 airports in the Middle East and Africa. It could also stave off a much-discussed expansion of the ban to flights from Europe.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly announced the rollout of the new rules yesterday.

The changes will be phased in over time and include enhanced passenger vetting, explosives detection and efforts to root out insider threats to airlines.

"Security is my No. 1 concern," Kelly said during a speech at the Center for a New American Security. "Our enemies are adaptive and we have to adapt as well."

Kelly said the changes will be "seen and unseen" and will be phased in over the coming weeks and months.

He said airlines that don't comply or are slow to enforce the new standards could be forced to bar large electronics in both carry-on and checked luggage. They could also lose permission to fly into the US. He said he's confident that airlines will cooperate.

The current ban, with affects only foreign carriers flying to the US from 10 cities, allows passengers to travel with larger electronics packed in checked baggage.

The new rules will apply to roughly 180 foreign and U.S.-based airlines, flying from 280 cities in 105 countries, according to Homeland Security. About 2,000 international flights land in the United States daily.

Michael W McCormick, executive director and COO of the Global Business Travel Association, said yesterday that airports will have to deploy enhanced explosive trace detention technology within 21 days and within six months add additional screening, detection dogs and other enhanced security measures.
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

Donald Trump mulling options before appealing against travel ban halt

Latset News - The Trump administration will not immediately appeal the federal appeals court decision blocking the travel ban in the Supreme Court as the White House is examining several options to revamp and save the controversial executive order on immigration.

"We will win that battle. The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order," the CNN quoted Trump as saying to reporters onboard Air Force One Friday evening.

Asked if his plan might be to issue a new executive order, he said: "It very well could be. We need speed for reasons of security, so it very well could be."

After a San Francisco federal appeals court on Thursday upheld the suspension of his the immigration order that (Read More)