Vendredi, 3 Juillet 2020
Dernières nouvelles
Principale » Where things stand and what comes next — Travel ban

Where things stand and what comes next — Travel ban

14 Juin 2017

"We disagree with the Ninth Circuit's decision to block that authority".

Three justices at the court said: "Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show".

But it also said the USA government was within its right to review the vetting process for people entering the country.

And now, the fight is on the Supreme Court's doorstep.

The president also has repeatedly condemned sitting federal judges and decisions he does not like, unprecedented criticism for a sitting president toward the judiciary in modern times.

They said Mr Trump had failed to show that the entry of people from the six countries mentioned in the ban, as well as the refugees, would be detrimental to U.S. interests.

The US 9 Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration's demand for the travel ban on Monday.

A three-judge panel said the administration failed to show that blocking citizens from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen was needed to protect the US.

He says "these are very risky times" and the US needs "every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence".

Trump weighs firing Mueller, according to confidante
Ruddy later added to that broadside against Spicer on CNN's "New Day". " Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel". Ruddy is a member of Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club who has met with the president several times since Trump took office.

To back up this argument they cited a tweet made by Donald Trump, which said the countries themselves were risky, rather than the people in them. But the appeals court narrowed the injunction issued by Watson in a significant way.

The 9th Circuit heard arguments May 15 in an expedited appeal of the Hawaii case. He promised during the campaign a "complete and total shutdown" of entry into the Muslims, and he continues to seek, as adviser Rudolph Giuliani put it, a legal way to do it.

The key part of the executive order suspended travel from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days to give the administration time to conduct a review of its vetting procedures. It is yet another stinging loss from a court that similarly refused to reinstate Trump's original executive order on travel in February.

Following the recent terrorist attacks in London, Trump had urged strong vetting process for people entering the US.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday during a news conference that the administration remains committed to the issue and is reviewing the opinion.

Sessions said that the president's executive order is "well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe".

"This executive order is nothing but discrimination and intolerance cloaked in the language of national security, and the Ninth Circuit saw this order for what it is", added Quigley. It applied to travelers from the six countries as well as Iraq and took effect immediately, leading to commotion at US airports as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out who the order covered and how it was to be implemented.

All of this leads us to pose the question: Is the Trump administration incompetent or does it merely want the issue - not the underlying policy? The case similarly found that a 120-day ban on admitting refugees also violated the Immigration and Naturalization Act without relying on the Frist Amendment's Establishment Clause to do so.