Supreme Court rules on President Trump’s refugee travel ban

The Supreme Court's decision this week was the next step in the Trump administration’s six-month effort to temporarily shut down the nation’s refu­gee program

Supreme Court (screen shot)

WASHINGTON, July 19, 2017 – The Supreme Court’s decision this week was but the next step in the Trump administration’s nearly six-month effort to temporarily shut down the nation’s refu­gee program, barring visitors from several Muslim-majority countries while it examines vetting procedures involving potential immigrants from six specific countries.

The Trump administration says the ban is needed to protect the United States from the kind of terrorism that has become a major issue in the European Union. Challengers have fought it as an allegedly unconstitutional effort to ban Muslims, despite the fact that immigration and national security are powers constitutionally assigned to the President.

The latest version of President Trump’s executive order banned visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, states also identified by the Obama Administration as harboring individuals that were likely to harm Western interests.

The Supreme Court on June 26 said it would consider the merits of the challenge in the fall, and in the meantime struck a compromise: The ban could go in effect regarding those without a connection to the United States, but people with a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States must be exempted.

Unfortunately, the justices did not clearly define a “close relationship,” instead offering examples of what would qualify for the exemption, for instance, a close relative in the United States, a spot in an American university, a job offer or speaking engagement.

The Washington Times offers the latest update to this ongoing story:

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.