Published: Fri, June 29, 2018
Global Media | By Garry Long

Amnesty Activists Slam 'Shameful' Ruling Upholding Travel Ban

Amnesty Activists Slam 'Shameful' Ruling Upholding Travel Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump's travel ban by a 5-4 vote.

But, she added: "By blindly accepting the Government's misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same risky logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one gravely wrong decision with another".

Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News Despite the controversial nature of Donald Trump's travel ban, there were more abortion rights activists outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning than immigration protesters.

Explaining the reason for throwing out the challenge, chief justice John Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. For example, the president could not use the ruling to summarily deport thousands of people living in the US who come from particular countries, since the ruling deals only with people trying to enter the USA, according to Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr.

Following the court's decision, advocacy and rights groups said the country would see an unprecedented number of families separated and warned of an increase in attacks against Muslims. The iteration upheld on Tuesday places travel restrictions on travelers from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, and Venezuela.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on", the Trump campaign once proclaimed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion, said the First Amendment clearly says the government can not favor one religion over another. Trump continually made statements indicating a distaste for Muslims, she notes, including as recently as November 2017. The President's ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries is another brick in the invisible wall which does nothing to strengthen our national security, or our nation's shared prosperity.

The legal test was whether a "reasonable observer" would think the travel ban reflected religious bias. Venezuela and North Korea also were targeted in the current policy.

Ex-Nato chief denied entry to USA for visiting Iran
Javier Solana told The New York Times that his renewal application on the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) was rejected for the first time .

The AAMC had filed an amicus brief with the high court challenging a series of executive actions over the past 18 months that imposed nationality-based exclusions, asserting that the actions would worsen the nation's health-professions shortage and impair its ability to advance medicine and protect public health.

"Since taking office, the Trump administration has shown time and again that they are pursuing a wide-ranging agenda of racism and bigotry - separating children from their families at the border, detaining and deporting immigrants, ending DACA and TPS, building up the deportation force, and of course, banning immigrants and refugees on the basis of their religion".

"The ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's great failures", said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the ban. On December 18, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled it was a "military necessity" to detain people of Japanese descent during the war and argued the order was not based on race.

Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, says the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Trump administration's travel ban gives "legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia".

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, found "stark parallels between the reasoning of this case and that of Korematsu"; in both cases, "the government invoked an ill-defined national-security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion". We are disappointed they ignored statements on how the ban will affect Muslim people and the message it sends to people.

A plurality of those who say they are in favor of the ban also wanted it to be expanded - with 3-in-10 saying so and 15% saying they don't want it expanded.

Like this: