The Trudeau government is waiting for more details after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday partially reinstated President Donald Trump’s ban on travellers from six mainly Muslim countries. The justices will hear full arguments in October. He spent Monday trying to figure out who will be allowed to follow in his footsteps. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive”.
Trump rolled out a travel ban just a week after his January 20 inauguration, but lower federal courts have blocked it and a revised version – and one court also has blocked a 120-day halt on refugee arrivals in the United States.
“We think it’s repugnant to our values that they might be treated differently because of where they are from or how they choose to pray”, Tumlin told reporters.
Trump hailed the decision as a “victory for national security”, but it’s likely to set off a new round of court disputes over anti-terror efforts and religious discrimination.
Gorsuch, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented in part on Monday, saying they would have put the entire order into effect immediately.
Denying entry to a person that does not have a relationship to a person or entity in the United States “does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. I also am particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0″, he said.
While the ban did not single out Muslims, lower court judges cited Trump’s repeated campaign statements that he meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States.
The memorandum states a “90-day pause on entry is necessary to prevent potentially unsafe individuals from entering the United States”.
“We are going to be monitoring all of that”, said Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, one of the plaintiffs in the case. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy.
The court said foreign travelers must demonstrate an existing relationship with the United States to be exempt from the ban.
Such a compromise, the justices said, will lead to a “flood of litigation” over what constitutes a “bona fide relationship” before the overall case is resolved after oral argument in the fall. “However, we are deeply concerned that thousands of others – including refugees with compelling humanitarian needs or serious medical conditions who have already undergone an exhaustive process to enter the United States – will be subjected to a policy driven by religious intolerance, racial animus, and discrimination”.
That leaves the ultimate fate of the ban in the hands of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Sabrie said, “That’s a delay for people who can least afford it”.
“The court’s ruling will leave refugees stranded in hard and unsafe situations overseas”, said Hardy Vieux, of Human Rights First.
The New York Immigration Coalition, another fierce opponent, said the ruling created more confusion by using the term ‘bona fide relationship, ‘ which “agencies and individuals will struggle to make sense of”.
That affects the ban on travel from the six countries and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States, with the exceptions noted by the court.
“This order, properly construed, should really allow for only the narrowest implementation of any part of the ban”.
Moving forward a campaign promise. “In Minnesota for instance with the refugee timeout that I’ve called for, I did that because we have problems already with assimilation and terrorist recruiting”.
The Supreme Court agreed to review both cases in October, noting that the government had not asked it to act faster.
That order was blocked by the courts and the administration revised it to address some of the legal concerns.