SCOTUS Decision on Travel Ban Leaves Local Refugee Aid Groups Scrambling

SCOTUS Decision on Travel Ban Leaves Local Refugee Aid Groups Scrambling

Sessions says Monday’s decision is “an important step toward restoring the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government” by recognizing the president’s right to protect national security.

Opponents welcomed the fact that the Supreme Court tempered the reach of the ban, as well as the prospect of the case being heard in the fall.

The dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch argued the travel ban should be fully implemented. That means it will take effect Thursday morning.

The president casts the travel ban as critical to deterring possible terrorist attacks in the United States.

The ban limits travel for 90 days from the six mostly Muslim countries and suspends the nation’s refugee program for 120 days.

“The President asked the court to hear the case in October … if the President really thinks if what’s at stake is national security then why wouldn’t he ask for it to be heard in June or July?”

The court order was only the latest jolt in a tumultuous year for refugee advocates who have grappled with the uncertainty of multiple executive orders and legal decisions. It also banned Syrian refugees from entering the country.

At the end of Monday’s decision, the Justices considered the status of refugees.

It was a legal win for the administration — to an extent.

The Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate parts of the Trump administration’s travel ban is potentially good news for many who want entry into the United States, but it may be a blow for refugees, experts told NBC News. He said in a statement that his “number one responsibility” is to keep Americans safe.

“I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name. So would a worker who accepted a job from an American company, a student enrolled at a USA university or a lecturer invited to address a US audience.

“All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]”. But, based on the results of its review of vetting procedures, the Trump administration can lengthen these time periods.

The court’s opinion explained the kinds of relationships people from the six countries must demonstrate to obtain a USA visa.

But much remains murky: What exactly is a bona fide relationship? For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, “the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the objective of evading” the travel ban.

The Supreme Court agreed to decide the legality of Trump order in its next term, which begins in October.

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.

The nation’s highest court on Monday said it would let a limited version of Trump’s ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries take effect. That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends September 30. With the ban partially in effect, the Department of Homeland Security has seventy days to conduct a review of whether foreign governments provide adequate information about their citizens applying for USA visas.