[Albert]

The Guardian
Sabrina Siddiqui in Washington

The number of refugees admitted to the US has fallen by nearly half under Donald Trump when compared with the final months of Barack Obama’s presidency, according to statistics released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

As the supreme court prepares to consider a White House appeal regarding the president’s ban on refugees and travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, a DHS report published on Friday provided new insight into the state of legal immigration under the Trump administration.



The statistics, first reported by the Los Angeles Times, showed at least 13,000 refugee admissions to the US in the past three months. In Obama’s last three months, that number tipped just over 25,000.

The report pointed to an escalation of refugee intake by the Obama administration around Trump’s win in the presidential election. Compared with the previous fiscal year, the period under Obama reflected an 86% year-over-year increase. Under Trump, there has been a 12% year-over-year drop.

Approximately two-thirds of refugees admitted to the US in the past three months were from five countries: Syria and Somalia, both included in the travel ban; Iraq, which was included in the first version of the ban; the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burma.

A week after taking office in January, Trump signed an executive order suspending all refugee admissions to the US for 120 days and barring entry for 90 days to immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The order prompted nationwide protests amidst scenes of chaos and confusion at many major airports.

The order was blocked in federal court. In March, a revised order removed Iraq from the list and sought to moderate language seemingly directed at Muslims. That order was also ruled against.

The supreme court is expected to rule this week, in its last sitting before a summer-long hiatus. Lawyers representing the Trump administration presented their closing pitch on Wednesday, insisting the travel ban was a counterterrorism measure, within the president’s authority to protect national security. Lawyers for the state of Hawaii and individual plaintiffs in Maryland filed paperwork on Tuesday.

Federal judges who blocked the bans cited harsh rhetoric employed by Trump on the campaign trail, specifically a pledge to ban all Muslims from entering the US and support for giving priority to Christian refugees, as being reflective of the intent behind his travel ban.

Judges also said both the administration and its supporters often employed language while defending the ban that suggested a more nefarious motivation than concern for national security. Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who was a top campaign surrogate for Trump, told Fox News that Trump called him after the election to ask how he could order a Muslim ban that would pass legal muster.

“I’ll tell you the whole history of it: when he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban’,” Giuliani said. “He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”

In February, an internal DHS report leaked to media outlets undermined the administration’s rationale by finding that citizens from the countries identified in Trump’s travel ban were “rarely implicated in US-based terrorism”.

Trump had been relatively quiet about the ban in recent months, only to return to the issue in the wake of the 3 June terrorist attack in London. Attacking Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of a major western capital city, Trump tweeted: “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people.”

The tweet undermined once more the administration’s insistence before the courts that the executive order is not a ban but an implementation of a policy of “extreme vetting”. The White House has scolded the media for by calling the order a “ban”, even though the characterization stemmed from Trump himself.

[Albert]

Just to update this further.

ReutersSun Jun 25, 2017
U.S. top court to rule on last cases as talk about Kennedy swirls

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to issue the final rulings of its current term on Monday, including one on religious rights, amid talk that swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy is considering retirement.

The court in the coming days is also expected to act on President Donald Trump's emergency request seeking to revive his travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, which was blocked by lower courts.

Although there are no firm indications that Kennedy, 81 in July, will step down, some of his former law clerks have said he is considering it. Any announcement could come after the court has finished issuing its rulings on Monday morning.

[center-img]https://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170625&t=2&i=1190409367&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=780&pl=468&sq=&r=LYNXMPED5O0E3[/center-img]

Kennedy has repeatedly declined to respond to media requests seeking comment on his plans. He joined his former law clerks at a reunion event on Saturday night, with several attendees saying he did not address the rumors.

If Kennedy were to retire, President Donald Trump, a Republican, would have a historic opportunity to recast the court in a more conservative posture, possibly for decades to come. He has already appointed one conservative justice, Neil Gorsuch. But Gorsuch replaced a conservative in a similar mold, Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last year. Replacing Kennedy, the swing vote for the last decade on the closely divided court, would be more significant. Kennedy has sided with the court's four liberals on some major issues, most notably gay rights.

Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday, Kellyanne Conway, a Trump adviser, declined to say if there has been any communication between the White House and Kennedy.

The nine justices are due to rule in six cases, not including their decision expected in the coming days on the travel ban.

Of the remaining cases argued during the court's current term, which began in October, the most eagerly awaited one concerns a Missouri church backed by a conservative Christian legal group. The ruling potentially could narrow the separation of church and state.

The church sued after being denied state taxpayer funds for a playground improvement project because of a Missouri constitutional provision barring state funding for religious entities.

Trinity Lutheran could be headed for a lopsided win, with two liberal justices joining their conservative colleagues in signaling support during the April oral argument. It was one of the first in which Trump's conservative appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, participated.

The most notable of three immigration-related cases in which rulings are due on Monday is a dispute over whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months while deportation proceedings unfold should be able to request their release. The case takes on additional significance with Trump ratcheting up immigration enforcement, placing more people in detention awaiting deportation.

The court also is set to decide a case that could clarify the criminal acts for which legal immigrants may be deported. Another involves whether the family of a Mexican teenager shot dead while standing on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Texas can sue for civil rights violations.

As the justices look to finish work before their summer break, they must decide what to do with Trump's travel ban, which was blocked by lower courts. The administration wants the ban to go into effect while the litigation continues.

The March 6 executive order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to let the government implement stronger vetting. Trump has said the order is needed for national security.

Waiting for the answer. I believe this Travel Ban case will be significant. Civil Rights in America was set off by supreme court, so as in this case, if the court rule in favour of the travel ban it will mark a significant turn around point. Personally for me it will mark a historical reversal of Civil Rights era or at least a hold on the progressive tide that was unleashed on American society and the world circa 50-60 years ago.

Also there are other interesting cases that the court is dealing with, that are related to immigration issues today.

[AFAIK]

How much of the decline is due to Obama ending the wet-foot-dry-foot policy for Cubans?

[Hong Wu]

Supreme court just cancelled the injunction, this bodes well for the court case.

[Albert]

Well looks like the hearing will be happening at the supreme court, so the case is not gong back to lower courts, and the travel ban will be reinstated but not fully.

USA Today Published 10:37 a.m. ET June 26, 2017

Supreme Court reinstates Trump's travel ban, but only for some immigrants

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to let President Trump's immigration travel ban go into effect for some travelers, reversing the actions of lower federal courts that had put the controversial policy completely on hold.

The court also agreed to hear the case involving travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries and all refugees in the early fall, leaving open the chance that it could reverse Monday's verdict if challengers can prove the ban is illegal or unconstitutional.

The justices' action gives Trump a partial victory following a string of defeats from coast to coast, and he wasted no time applauding it.

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security," Trump said in a statement. "It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective."

That was immediately contested by immigrant rights and civil liberties groups challenging the travel ban, who argued that most would-be travelers cannot be barred under the court's compromise ruling. "The hope is that this really only impacts a very small number of people,” said Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

Until Monday, the travel ban had been under siege in federal courts. Some struck it down as a form of religious discrimination against Muslims. Others said it showed bias based on nationality and exceeded the president's authority without a firm national security justification.

The high court's action, therefore, represents at least a minor setback for immigration rights and civil liberties groups that had bottled up two executive orders through legal action, exacerbating the president's battles with federal courts that began during the election campaign.

The revised travel ban, issued in March, blocks most new immigrants from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. As a result of the high court's action, the ban can be implemented for some travelers, along with a long-delayed review of vetting procedures used to screen foreigners trying to enter the United States.

Since he signed the first executive order Jan. 27, Trump has pitched the travel ban as a temporary anti-terrorism policy needed to give the government time to review and improve screening procedures, both worldwide and for the particular countries in question: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The court's action was written without an author, but with a partial dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who would have allowed the ban to apply to all travelers.

"The government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States," the court said.

On the other hand, it said the ban "may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

The action isn't expected to set off the kind of chaos seen around the world when Trump signed the first travel ban into effect on Jan. 27. That executive order, which went into effect immediately, barred all travelers from seven countries from entering the U.S. even if they had green cards, valid visas or refugee status. It led to at least 746 people temporarily detained at U.S. airports, some being deported back to their home countries, and untold numbers of others prevented from boarding their flights at airports overseas.

The revised travel ban, with the court's limitations, now can go into effect this week, based on a memorandum recently signed by the president. It allows travelers with green cards and visas to continue entering the U.S., but still forbids all refugees. That means some refugees may get stuck, but nowhere near the number of people ensnared by the first ban.

The travel ban originally was proposed as a way to free resources for the review of screening procedures, but the two were separated by the most recent federal appeals court ruling that allowed only the review to go forward. That created the possibility that the review could be completed before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the travel ban case, rendering the dispute moot.

Because visa and green card holders were included in the first ban, it immediately produced confusion and protests at U.S. airports. Within days, federal judges in New York and Boston intervened, and a third federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide injunction in early February.

Trump unveiled a revised order in March that smoothed out some of the original ban's rougher edges. It called for a 90-day ban on travelers from six countries and 120 days for refugees, but it excluded visa and green card holders, deleted a section that gave preference to Christian minorities, and included a waiver process for those claiming undue hardship.

That order was blocked by a federal judge in Hawaii hours before it was to go into effect on March 16, as well as by another federal judge in Maryland. The Justice Department appealed both rulings, leading to similar slap-downs by federal appeals courts in Richmond May 25 and San Francisco June 12.

As it reached the Supreme Court, the travel ban had been struck down on both constitutional and statutory grounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 10-3 that it discriminated against Muslims by targeting only countries with overwhelmingly large Muslim majorities. But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously that the ban violated federal immigration law by targeting people from certain countries without improving national security.

Through all the defeats, Trump was forced to play on what amounts to his opponents' home turf: The 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, is dominated by President Bill Clinton's nominees. The 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, is dominated by President Barack Obama's nominees. All 13 judges on those two courts who voted to strike down the revised travel ban were appointed by Democratic presidents.

By contrast, the Supreme Court includes five justices named by Republican presidents and four by Democrats. Chief Justice John Roberts is a strong proponent of executive authority, particularly in foreign affairs. Alito has spent his entire career working for the government. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a 2015 immigration case that a "legitimate and bona fide" reason for denying entry to the United States can pass muster. Gorsuch is a stickler for the written text of statutes — and banning Muslims isn't mentioned in Trump's executive order. Thomas is the most conservative of all.

Despite those advantages, Trump at times has been his own worst enemy. His presidential campaign speeches, official statements and tweets gave opponents of the ban fodder for their challenges -- from Trump's vow in 2015 to seek "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" to his lament this month that his lawyers should have pushed for a "much tougher version" rather than the "politically correct" order he signed in March.

[ThirdTerm]

The Supreme Court said in Monday's ruling: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]." As a result, those with green cards or student visas as well as relatives of US residents will be exempt from the ban and the negative effects of the executive order will be minimal. Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election. His presence in the Supreme Court has been imminical and this is how AA goes wrong.

The Supreme Court could soon have another vacancy, according to a report Monday.

Conservative High Court Justice Clarence Thomas is considering retiring from the bench following the November presidential election, the Washington Examiner reported, citing “court watchers.”

The report cited sources claiming that Thomas, 67, had “been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2680433

[Suntzu]

Let the Republicans play hardball. Come up with a vetting process that Jesus could pass.

[Dead Presidents]

Let the Republicans play hardball. Come up with a vetting process that Jesus could pass.

Hopefully there be more James T. Hodgkinsons, lord knows they need to be killed.

[Ter]

@ThirdTerm

Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election. His presence in the Supreme Court has been imminical and this is how AA goes wrong.

Please elucidate.
We just had a presidential election.
I thought it was Justice Kennedy who is rumoured to retire, not Thomas.

[Suntzu]

If Thomas retired died nobody would notice.

[Zionist Nationalist]

If the Muslims refugees want an asylum they should seek it in one of the 50 Muslim states around the world

Iran can also absorb refugees they dont have any wars going on there
and what about Indonesia and Malaysia?