Rights groups criticize US Supreme Court decision to allow parts of Trump’s travel ban


NEW YORK, June 27 (APP): American rights groups Tuesday
criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow parts
of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to be enforced.
On Monday, the court said it would hear the appeals of two
cases that had resulted from the travel ban, which aimed to
keep the citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries —
Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — from entering the United States for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.
The top court agreed to stay parts of rulings that had blocked
the ban from being enforced. The partial stay means that foreigners
with no U.S. ties could be prohibited from entering the country,
but those with ties such as through business or personal
relationship would remain unaffected, The New York Times reported.
Those who had been to the country previously also could enter.
“The implication on the ground is actually not as severe, I think,
as it might at first appear because the number of people who
will be affected by this narrow version of the ban is
much smaller,” American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Director
of Immigrants’ rights project, Omar Jadwat, said.
“I think it’s a complete mischaracterization to say that this
is in some way a victory for the administration. What they’re
being allowed to move forward with here is, is really the
smallest sliver, the kind of faintest shadow of what they set
out to originally accomplish,” Jadwat noted.
The Trump administration moved to take credit for the
ruling, describing it as “a clear victory for our national security.”
“It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone
countries and the refugee suspension to become largely
effective,” the president in a statement said. “As president, I
cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm.”
The court narrowed the scope of lower court rulings
that blocked Trump’s Muslim ban from taking effect nationwide,
and also agreed to hear the administration’s appeal in these cases.
US Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the ruling,
asserting that “Groups like ISIL (Daesh) and al-Qaeda seek to
sow chaos and destruction in our country, and often operate
from war-torn and failed countries.”
Meanwhile, arrivals from the six countries have already
dropped sharply, in part thanks to the US authorities’
“extreme vetting” approach.
According to the New York Immigration Coalition,
“agencies and individuals will struggle to make sense of” what
the ruling means by “bona fide relationship.”
Trump’s original measure, issued by executive order in
January, was almost immediately blocked by the courts,
making the administration announce a revised version in March.
The nine justices are set to examine the case in full in October.
The US State Department said it would implement the ruling
in a “professional” manner.
“We will keep those traveling to the United States and partners
in the travel industry informed as we implement the order in
a professional, organized, and timely way,” State
Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert (pictured above) said in a statement.
“We are also in contact with our partners in the implementation
of the United States Refugee Admissions Programme, and will
keep them apprised of changes as they take effect,” she added.