The Government’s Muslim Ban

The Government’s Muslim Ban ‘Guidance’ is Arbitrary, Illogical, and Discriminatory – Just Like the Ban.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that the government could proceed to a very limited part of the Muslim ban on Trump’s President, the Department of Homeland Security announced that its application would be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, especially for Travelers who may be affected. “Unfortunately, clarity is far from what happened.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it would review the executive order in October. The court acknowledged that the ban would impose “practical difficulties” on individuals, businesses, schools and organizations across the country and has not weighed on the full merits of the case – whether it is constitutional or not. However, the court ruled that the federal government could prevent refugees and people from six predominantly Muslim countries having “no good faith relationship with a person or entity in the United States” to enter the country from a period of 90 to 120 days.

However, instead of faithfully complying with the order of the Supreme Court, the federal government intends to rewrite it unilaterally. In the guidelines published yesterday, the government imposed a set of rules that prohibits many people who can not be banned by the directive of the Supreme Court. This is simply unacceptable.

In describing the types of “good faith” relationships that exempt an individual from the ban, the Supreme Court explained that the circumstances of plaintiffs challenging the Muslim ban in two cases before the Court “illustrate the kind of relationship that Qualify “. The court Developed as examples: “A foreigner wishing to enter the United States to live with a relative or accompany, as the wife of [John] Doe or stepmother Dr. Elshikh, clearly such a relationship. Of the Supreme Court, the government opted for a baggage support of family relations as “close enough” to qualify for an exemption from the ban, leaving another family arbitrarily banned.

So why did the government say that these relationships do not count when the court declared? He offered no intelligible explanation.
Among those who are forbidden: grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, nephews, cousins, brothers and sisters of the population of the United States. We do not suggest that we do not love our mothers, but there is no basis to suggest that a stepmother is a closer relationship than a grandfather, aunt or even a cousin. These are all family relationships with people who often play an exceptional role in people’s lives from childhood. Indeed, the Supreme Court has previously emphasized our “venerable” tradition of “close relatives” as “uncles, aunts, cousins and especially grandparents share a home with parents and children.” The line that the government has retained no sense at all and not in front of the courts.

The government has already begun to reduce its unsupported positions. Yesterday morning, the government even banned pledges from US citizens. This rule, like the others described here, was directly contrary to what the Supreme Court had ordered. Later in the day, the government changed speed, and now that it no longer applies to the prohibition of the betrothed.

Similarly, the government seemed, at least initially, to ignore the instruction of the Supreme Court that individuals can not be prohibited if they have “a credible claim of a good faith relationship with a United UNITED entity.” Examples of The Supreme Court said that even a “public” for a conference could count.And many of the refugees and people of the six countries have banned “formal documentation” Relationship and in good faith with this type of organizations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *