Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S revised travel ban is facing mounting new legal challenges as the state of Washington, along with several other states, vowed to block the executive order.
The announcement came one day after Hawaii filed the first suit challenging the controversial new directive, which temporarily closes US borders to all refugees and citizens from six mainly-Muslim countries.
Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose state was the first to sue over Trump’s initial travel ban that created airport chaos worldwide and was eventually blocked, said at least three other states – Minnesota, New York and Oregon – are expected to join in the new legal battle.
He said his motion calls on the court to apply an existing injunction against the first travel ban issued in January to the new executive order unveiled on Monday.
“My message to President Trump is – not so fast,” Ferguson told reporters.
After spending more than a month to fix a broken order that he rushed out the door, the president’s new order reinstates several of the same provisions and has the same illegal motivations as the original.
“Consequently, we are asking Judge (James) Robart to confirm that the injunction he issued remains in full force and effect as to the reinstated provisions.”
Ferguson said although the revised order was narrower in scope, it still could be challenged on constitutional grounds.
The new order denies US entry to all refugees for 120 days and halts for 90 days the granting of visas to nationals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan. It is due to take effect on 16 March.
The first order had also applied to citizens of Iraq but the country was dropped from the new list.
‘Infected’
Hawaii filed the first lawsuit over the new ban on Tuesday, saying it remained unconstitutional despite the changes.
“This second executive order is infected with the same legal problems as the first order – undermining bedrock constitutional and statutory guarantees,” said the suit, which was filed Wednesday in a federal court in Honolulu.
Judge Derrick Watson put the suit on a fast track, scheduling a hearing on whether to impose a national restraining order on 15 March, the day before the executive order goes into effect.
The White House cites national security in justifying the ban, arguing that it needs time to implement “extreme vetting” procedures to keep Islamic militants from entering the country.
Broader crackdown
It comes amid a broader US crackdown on undocumented immigrants, following on Trump’s campaign promises of mass deportations and to build a wall on the Mexican border.
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said the orders toughening immigration enforcement have driven down illegal entries – as measured by apprehensions at the border – by 40% from January to February.
But Trump suffered a major black eye in January when his first attempt to impose the travel ban erupted into heart-rending scenes of families being detained and deported at US airports and, eventually, a slap from the courts.
Polls show American public opinion is deeply divided on the issue. Most indicate a slight majority of voters opposed, with strong support among Trump’s political base.
Arguments that the ban had caused “irreparable harm” proved crucial in a San Francisco appellate court’s decision to uphold the lower court’s move to block enforcement.
The challenge facing Hawaii will be to show that the ban violates constitutional guarantees against discrimination on the basis of religion.
The White House has modified the latest version of its decree so that it can pass legal muster, stripping away a reference to religion while also explicitly exempting legal permanent residents and current visa holders from the ban.
There also has been 10 days notice before it goes into effect, in a clear attempt to avoid the chaos that broke out when the first ban was imposed with no advance warning on 27 January.
Muslim ban
In its suit, however, Hawaii argues that the second order “began life as a Muslim ban”.
As evidence of the administration’s intentions, the suit detailed numerous instances during the campaign that Trump referred to it as a Muslim ban.
Hawaii also claimed that the order violates constitutional protections against discrimination on the basis of nationality, the right to travel, fair process in determining who can enter or leave the country, as well as violations of US immigration law.
“Nothing of substance has changed: There is the same blanket ban on entry from Muslim-majority countries (minus one),” Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said in a statement.
“The courts did not tolerate the administration’s last attempt to hoodwink the judiciary, and they should not countenance this one,” Chin wrote.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I wonder if anybody has actually studied which countries actually pose or have posed the most serious threat to the US.
I won’t even ask if they know which countries actually carried out the largest terrorist attacks against the US and if they are on the list.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But Trump has businesses in those countries. He has no businesses in the countries he proposes to ban.
Even though they harbour and support terrorists?
Saudi Arabia -
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/what-we-know-about-saudi-arabias-role-in-911/amp/
The US have oil interests in Saudi, so unsurprisingly, not listed.
While undoubtedly a megalomaniac, the US defence contacts outweigh his personal interests, which is why these countries are off the list. His own families legacy and financial security is already set, and now that he has seen how he can raise military spending by tens of billions, he’ll start to grasping that power… even if it means Ivanka’s clothes don’t sell, her husband will still be at the heart of these new military contacts.
The seven countries on the list were identified by the Obama administration as the most likely sources of future terrorist attacks on US soil.
@Jason Culligan:
Great idea to forget the past and the schools and those that are financing them, that are bringing up new generations of terrorists and extremists.
Jason: How can they think pakistan poses no threat when they are using drones to kill terrorists in pakistan as we speak?
And an aggressive ban such as this will only serve to cause more terrorists to radicalise.
This ban is only to appease Trumps xenophobic followers, and won’t prevent any terrorism
@Jason Culligan: Lets talk about Iran ? What changes to the current visa programme will make America safer ? Thanks.
PS.Have the Homeland Security come out with a statement regards an imminent threat from these 7 countries ?
@Dave Harris What a lazy comparision to make : Well if the ban “serve to cause more terrorists to radicalise” Good . More drones to take them out then . So they must have been on the edge anyway
@Brian Lilly: There is some sort of policing in these countries, some control at least.
Any comment on the fact that Israeli Jews are banned from entering any of the countries on Trump’s proposed travel ban, and in most of these countries an Irish citizen would be banned from entering if they so much as have an Israeli exit / entry stamp on their Irish passport ? This has been the case for years and we’ve all been extremely quiet about it..
Well two wrongs do make a right I suppose.
@Karen Wellington: For the record Karen I don’t agree with any travel ban that is based on nationality or race – the concept of singling out people based on the colour of their passport is disgusting to me. However, I do recognise the hypocrisy in social media commentary in this country, where being anti-Israeli seems to be acceptable but being anti Iranian is horribly racist..
Countries can decide who comes in, or not – for any reason.
How is it wrong to impose restrictions on visas from countries you’re not friendly with. Israel have been known to assassinate individuals in other countries. They done so not too long ago using fake Irish passports. While you won’t stop that it seems silly to just let them wonder in.
Maybe because israel is doing pretty evil shit
@Awkward Seal: For the same reason that the UK didn’t impose a blanket ban on Irish citizens entering their country during the ’60s, ’70s & ’80s – they knew that we weren’t all intent on bombing their pubs and that most of us are law abiding and sensible people, so they allowed entry but carried out security checks. Blanket bans based on nationality is racist, uncivilised and downright unfair.
Unfair, maybe – but security and safety are more information than fairness. Every state has the right to dictate who visits, or doesn’t – do you actually think otherwise?
@willypearson: I agree, as are Syria, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Sudan, Somalia – and don’t forget UK, Russia, Japan, Australia, France, USA, Korea, China… My point is that the Irish seem to be blinkered and single out Jewish Israel over all others.
Every country develops such policies based on the standards of the country. In the US this ban had previously been argued against as unconstitutional. If you have a constitution you pass laws that are not in conflict with it.
A blanket ban on a nation isn’t racist as it doesn’t specifically target race. If the UK were to impose a blanket ban on Irish travelling to the UK they would have been justified as it would have cut down on the number of terrorists attacks. However there is a cost-benefit analysis to such a move that would make it not worth it in most cases. If it’s unfair so what. No country is obliged to be fair to the citizens of other countries. If they don’t want to be discriminated against because of the passport they hold they should try to reform their counties so that the state doesn’t sponsor terrorism. Civilisation is based on rules. Every country in the world limits the number of people that are allowed to enter and citizens of different countries are treated differently. Some can enter for as long as they wish, some may only apply for certain visas and stay a limited amount of time and the number of visas allocated to different countries varies too. So basically every country in the world is unfairly discriminating based on nationality. So your whole argument is nonsense unless you’re advocating for open borders worldwide.
This is for s h i t s ville but seems to have posted to the wrong place
Trump is right.
@John Henry: Trump is infallible and all seeing. Trump is God. Bow down and worship our great leader. Let him rule the planet and the skies. His wisdom is infinite.
@Tony Daly: Hes not that great Tony but we get your point. Long live King Trump!
There’s a lot more scrutiny of major decisions – in the US – than here…
@Fank Pulman: you raise a very interesting but provocative point.
Politicians around the world are loving this Trump circus – all sorts of crafty shenanigans can be done under the distractions
It sounds like they have no legal leg to stand on. If Trump said the sky was blue there’d be protests on the street calling him racist against the sky.
Except that trumps is more likely to say that the sky is green.
The usual Democrat state’s running in to court going nowhere on this occasion
Trump is such a unifying President. He is coherent the US nation. He should be made honorary Chairman of FG.
Your second sentence is gibberish, and your point is childish…
@Fank Pulman: cohering the US nation.
Just being facetious.
Trump brings out that unworthy quality in me but fair criticism which I accept.
@Jason Culligan: Red herring
have your say