Share
EXPLAINED: Trump's Third Muslim Ban Allowed to Go Into Effect For Now
The latest developments in the Trump Muslim "Travel" Ban saga played out on Friday, December 8, 2017 at oral arguments before the U.S. 4th District Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Some of the Tweeter in Chief's xenophobic tweets from the previous week played a part in the discussion of the third version of the travel ban:
In lively, aggressive questions, several judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit pointed to the president’s tweets last week sharing inflammatory anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British activist.
“Do we just ignore reality and look at the legality to determine how to handle this case?” said Judge James A. Wynn Jr.
“The president has continued to make statements that some people regard to be anti-Muslim after the issuance of this order,” said Judge Diana Gribbon Motz. “Should we be surprised that it might be construed as an anti-Muslim order?”
But, no matter what the 4th District Court of Appeals decides, there is still another level to reach before a final determination of the travel ban is made:
... the judges acknowledged that no matter their findings, the Supreme Court is watching and has suggested it will have the final word.
Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet made a final decision on the legality of the travel ban, even though there was news that they allowed the third travel ban to go into effect on Monday, December 4, 2017:
In the lead-up to the argument on Friday, the administration got a big boost from the Supreme Court, which granted the president’s request to fully enforce the ban for certain residents of six mostly Muslim countries while challenges in lower courts play out.
Though the orders that granted a stay preliminary injunctions were full of procedural references and not easy to understand for people without much legal knowledge, this is a huge blow. It does unfortunately mean that the third travel ban is now in effect, at least temporarily. People in the U.S. are now prevented from bringing their loved ones who reside in the banned countries to the United States.
The unsigned opinion from the Supreme Court on Monday lifted injunctions issued by judges in Hawaii and Maryland and allowed the government to deny visas even if the applicants have bona fide relationships — a definition that includes grandparents, cousins, aunts and brothers-in-law.
This is terrible as a whole, but keep sight of the individual stories that have spurred these court challenges of the travel ban, and the heartbreak caused to so many others:
The individuals challenging the ban are U.S. citizens and lawful residents whose relatives are seeking visas. Among them is an Iranian engineer who has lived in Maryland since 2012 with his wife, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health. His wife is seeking a visa for her Iranian mother, who she has not seen in two years.
“It feels especially unjust and injurious that even while I am contributing to helping the government do its work, the government is now targeting me and telling me that my family and I do not belong here,” according to a statement filed in court by the engineer who works on major government contracts.
Another plaintiff is a researcher in pharmacology in Ohio who was born in Syria and has lived in the United States since 2001. Sumaya Hamadmad is trying to bring her father-in-law, also of Syria, to the United States for cancer treatments and to get to know his young grandchildren.
According to Hamadmad’s statement in court, “It is painful for all of us that he lives so far away and may be separated from us indefinitely.”
The Supreme Court's orders urge the Courts of Appeals to be speedy in their determinations of the cases involving the travel ban. Here's hoping that the third version of the travel ban will only be in effect for a short time before these matters are formally appealed to the Supreme Court, and that the ban is struck down.
Sources:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/