Jump to content
Thailand Forum
webfact

U.S. Supreme Court allows broad Trump refugee ban

Recommended Posts

webfact    24,352

U.S. Supreme Court allows broad Trump refugee ban

By Lawrence Hurley and Dan Levine

 

tag-reuters.jpg

FILE PHOTO - Protesters hold signs against U.S. President Donald Trump's limited travel ban, approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, in New York City, U.S. on June 29, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Penney/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

 

The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.

 

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump's controversial executive order.

 

Trump signed an order on March 6 that banned travellers from six Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The policy suspended travel to the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, and locked out most refugees.

 

U.S. courts have since limited the scope of that order. In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban.

 

The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.

 

However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump's refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.

 

The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.

 

A representative for the Hawaii attorney general, who challenged the administration in court, could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

Earlier on Tuesday, Hawaii said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still "bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country." All the 9th Circuit ruling did is "protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores," the state's lawyers added.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham and Lisa Shumaker)

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LannaGuy    7,342

Wow! to be fair there must be some limits surely?  I'd be surprised if the SC does not back the POTUS right to make such an order. Kids of past transgressors should be 'grandfathered' in though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevenl    8,764
6 minutes ago, kamahele said:

So, the Trump administration will ban those trying to enter the US as refugees which is by far the most difficult way to enter the country taking 18-24 months of investigation before (if) approvals are issued. It only makes sense to those with no knowledge of the immigration system and to racists.

Plus a temporary ban issued on March 6 so they could improve the vetting system. I would presume that improvement has been made by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonnapat    195
3 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

There is still hope for America. Appears there is some form of intelligence in that country Maybe  America can be great again

Delusional.More such Supreme Court decisions favouring Trump can be expected by this now right wing establishment. Such protectionism is not a good sign of things to come. Smacks of British Brexiteers 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sawadeeken    488
2 hours ago, inThailand said:

It's about f....time!

 

How much time and money was wasted on this issue?

I'm with You...................

This is the ONE and maybe ONLY move where I will 'back-up' Trump................ After what i see of muslim refugees (I intentionally did not capitalize muslim) doing in countries around the world, I am convinced that they have no interest in 'joining us' and fitting-in and working for 'Our common goals'........ 

They are 'SELFISH' and only want what they want and 'they' want us to bend to their 'wants'.......

ENOUGH............. Close the door USA...........

I must add however that since I live in California, I have no problems with the 'Hispanic' and see them work good.......... Keep them and the illegal Asians as well....... Good workers mostly...

One reservation to above....... Hispanic and Asian 'gangs' must go............

 

Edited by sawadeeken
remove quote site
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sawadeeken    488
12 minutes ago, Jonnapat said:

Delusional.More such Supreme Court decisions favouring Trump can be expected by this now right wing establishment. Such protectionism is not a good sign of things to come. Smacks of British Brexiteers 

Your personal opinion........ of course........ we all have 'our' as well................... It's your (and our) 'right'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simple1    6,419
50 minutes ago, sawadeeken said:

I'm with You...................

This is the ONE and maybe ONLY move where I will 'back-up' Trump................ After what i see of muslim refugees (I intentionally did not capitalize muslim) doing in countries around the world, I am convinced that they have no interest in 'joining us' and fitting-in and working for 'Our common goals'........ 

They are 'SELFISH' and only want what they want and 'they' want us to bend to their 'wants'.......

ENOUGH............. Close the door USA...........

I must add however that since I live in California, I have no problems with the 'Hispanic' and see them work good.......... Keep them and the illegal Asians as well....... Good workers mostly...

One reservation to above....... Hispanic and Asian 'gangs' must go............

 

Currently the US has an annual refugee intake allocation of 50,000 p.a. There are 57 Muslim majority countries, if you're a US national surely you understand the current restrictions only applies to nationals from six Muslim majority countries. The Trump Administration has not restricted entry for Muslims who originate from the countries that are the the main source of Islamist ideology promoting Jihadi violence e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Edited by simple1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jackh    391
8 hours ago, simple1 said:

Currently the US has an annual refugee intake allocation of 50,000 p.a. There are 57 Muslim majority countries, if you're a US national surely you understand the current restrictions only applies to nationals from six Muslim majority countries. The Trump Administration has not restricted entry for Muslims who originate from the countries that are the the main source of Islamist ideology promoting Jihadi violence e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Have patience. I am confident Trump has them all in his crosshairs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott    11,606

There was never any doubt that the President would have at least a partial win on this one and that is what he got, a partial win.   The Executive branch has very broad discretionary power in the area of immigration.   The Congress sets the number of immigrants to be allowed in and the Executive branch chooses the number to be allowed as refugees.   This number was reduced from 100,000 by the previous administration to 50,000 by Trump.   The number of refugees is a part of the total immigration numbers, not an addition to it.   So the number of people entering the US will not change.

 

The countries in question had been put under very restrictive measures by the previous administration and a much more carefully wording of his Executive Order -- or no order at all, just a directive to the State Department, would have been much more effective and avoided the legal challenges.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hawker9000    3,985

I was sure there'd finally be some sanity injected into the situation by the recently re-constitutionalized Supreme Court.  If Trump would just get busy and start filling those federal judgeships with qualified jurists (who actually acknowledge their responsibilities to the Constitution) instead of political hacks, we wouldn't have to waste so much time on liberal agenda-driven issues like this.

Edited by hawker9000
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simple1    6,419
1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

I was sure there'd finally be some sanity injected into the situation by the recently re-constitutionalized Supreme Court.  If Trump would just get busy and start filling those federal judgeships with qualified jurists (who actually acknowledge their responsibilities to the Constitution) instead of political hacks, we wouldn't have to waste so much time on liberal agenda-driven issues like this.

Trump has been very busy thoroughly politicising the appointment of judges.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 24 September 2017 17:12
Sponsors
×