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.
THE SUPREME COURT of the Unites States is allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees.
The justices yesterday agreed to an administration request to block a lower court ruling that would have eased the refugee ban and allowed up to 24,000 refugees to enter the country before the end of October.
The order was not the court’s last word on the travel policy that President Donald Trump first rolled out in January.
The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on 10 October on the legality of the bans on travellers from six mostly Muslim countries and refugees anywhere in the world.
It’s unclear, though, what will be left for the court to decide. The 90-day travel ban lapses in late September and the 120-day refugee ban will expire a month later.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said last night:
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has allowed key components of the order to remain in effect.
We will continue to vigorously defend the order leading up to next month’s oral argument in the Supreme Court.
The administration has yet to say whether it will seek to renew the bans, make them permanent or expand the travel ban to other countries.
Violate laws
Lower courts have ruled that the bans violate the Constitution and federal immigration law. The High Court has agreed to review those rulings. Its intervention so far has been to evaluate what parts of the policy can take effect in the meantime.
The justices said in June that the administration could not enforce the bans against people who have a “bona fide” relationship with people or entities in the United States. The justices declined to define the required relationships more precisely.
A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge’s order that would have allowed refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the US had agreed to take them in.
The administration objected, saying the relationship between refugees and resettlement agencies shouldn’t count. The High Court’s unsigned, one-sentence order agreed with the administration, at least for now.
The appeals court also upheld another part of the judge’s ruling that applies to the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Grandparents and cousins of people already in the US can’t be excluded from the country under the travel ban, as the Trump administration had wanted. The administration did not ask the Supreme Court to block that part of the ruling.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I wonder if Elon can bankrupt Twitter as fast as Truss tanked the UK economy…
@Rui Firmino: He’s giving it a good shot to be fair…he’s completely out of his depth.
@Rui Firmino: I think you got it backwards. When it took it over it was losing millions a day, $4 million a day at the moment. He is trying to reverse that.
@Celtic Eagle: *When he took it over..
@Celtic Eagle: bet it’s losing more than €4m a day now ….
@MrHammey12: who knows, but if a business genius takes over a failing company then it’s strange to say ‘he will bankrupt the company’. I’ve a funny feeling they are political comments by woke liberals.
@Celtic Eagle: He’s not gonna ride ya
@OnlyHereForTheComments: It’s almost embarassing to see these Elon fanboys.
@Rui Firmino: I’m not a fanboy. I’m just stating facts. It seems to me your very emotional on the subject
@Celtic Eagle: Don’t be daft. The only thing I feel seeing this mess is contempt.
@Celtic Eagle: maybe if you say “woke liberals” a few more times Elon will invite you over to his gaff for a few drinks?
@Celtic Eagle:
@Celtic Eagle: Twitter made $1.3 billon profit in the last 4 years, in 2018-2021. It’s profits were knocked in 2020 and 2021 by a drop in advertising due to the pandemic.
Last year Twitter reduced its losses to $221 millon (on $5 billon revenue) was likely, contrary to what Elon claimed, set to become profitable this year. He’s messed that up.
Year Net Profit ($)
2018 1206
2019 1466
2020 -1136
2021 -221
And who knows where invites to gaffs and drinks can potentially lead!
@Mel Fitzpatrick: yep, his blue checkmark changes enabled 1 troll for 8 dollars to wipe 4.37% value off of the stock price of a 336 billion dollar pharma company with 1 tweet. Over 14.5 billion just went poof!
So thrashing it out with randomers on Twitter is the how Twitter is developing it’s HR policies now .If it wasn’t so serious for Twitter staff it would be funny .
Wow just as the UK government starts to make sensible sounding noises and threatens to end the ongoing comedy soap Elon comes to the rescue and brings us hilarious antics as he trys to make twitter pay off. Instead of millions of people getting messed about it’s only a few thousand most of whom are probably already planning moves and toughing it out for redundancy pay.
He told the Tesla managers that if they didn’t want to come to the office for at least 40 hours per week they could pretend to work at home for someone else.
Can someone explain why you would pay an absolute fortune for a company that’s losing $4 million a day, surely you’d buy it for way less then try and turn it around to make a profit???
have your say