The judge who halted the Muslim Ban last month has refused to issue another order stopping the new executive order from President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge James Robart blamed procedural reasons as to whether his restraining order applies to the new travel ban.
He said in an order that motions or a complaint over the revised ban need to be filed before he can make a decision.
The Justice Department said in a filing this week that the original order had been revoked and that the court’s restraining order does not limit the government’s ability to immediately begin enforcing the new order.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on Thursday the administration believed the revised travel ban will stand up to legal scrutiny.
What's different this time?
The big difference is the number of countries affected. Iraq has apparently agreed with Trump on extra vetting of people coming in from their country.
And so they have no longer been included on the list.
However, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will all be banned starting on Thursday.
It is also not instant. Trump said that if they had announced the previous ban with more than a week’s notice ‘bad’ people would rush into America. This time he gave more than a week’s notice.
People who can work and live in the States, so-called Green Card holders, can come in even if they’re from the listed countries.
Christian refugees, the persecuted minority that Trump said he would prioritise, will no longer be prioritised by the American refugee programme after the 120 day moratorium ends.
It comes as Trump was banned by a federal judge from stopping a Syrian family looking to flee to Wisconsin.
The Syrian-Muslim father came to the state and tried for asylum for his wife and three-year-old daughter stuck in Aleppo.
He filed a federal lawsuit in Madison in February alleging Trump’s first travel ban had stopped the visa process for them.
Now the family are preparing to travel to Jordan for visa interviews at the US embassy, the last step before issuing visas.
But the family does not have dates for the interviews and the new travel ban goes into effect on March 16, stirring fears that the process could halt again before visas are issued, according to the Syrian man’s attorneys.
The man filed a new complaint on Friday afternoon alleging the new ban is just as problematic as the first, calling it anti-Muslim and alleging it violates his right to due process, equal protection and freedom of religion.
He asked Judge Conley to declare the ban unconstitutional on its face and block enforcement against his family.
It is unclear whether the new ban applies to asylum seekers such as the Syrian family. Government attorneys argued during a teleconference with Judge Conley on Friday that it does not, while the man’s attorneys maintain it does.
Judge Conley issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement against the family, saying the man seems to have a good chance of winning the case.
It will be heard on March 21.
Which states are against the new ban?
Hawaii: The island state, with 5,000 Muslims complained immediately. Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the island of Oahu’s only mosque, is the named plaintiff. They claimed it would affect tourism, among others issues.
New York: The state which elected Trump’s rival, Secretary Clinton, as a senator twice called the new ban a ‘Muslim ban by another name.’
Oregon: A liberal East Coast state, Oregon complained that industries like the health care system would be affected when they complained.
Minnesota: In their objection the state claimed Trump can’t just override previous bans of his executive order by introducing a new one.
Washington: The Northern state added in their complaint that the move ‘has the same illegal motivations as the original.’
No comments:
Post a Comment