in

Trump’s Administration is Going Directly to the Supreme Court for a Final Ruling on His Travel Ban

President Trump’s administration is apparently tired of running into the same 8-10 people in the judiciary who keep blocking the President’s travel bans. The travel bans are against countries which his administration has deemed to have a population that is likely to export terrorism to the United States.

The Trump administration has also cited other reasons for the bans, which include things like the fact that many of these governments in these bans are accused of being state sponsors of terrorism. They have also frequently refused to work with the United States on verification of their people who are emigrating to the United States.

The judges in this third round of court battles over the travel bans are also attempting to rewrite federal law through court precedent so that it may supersede the law as passed by Congress. The judges believe something other than what the plain reading of federal immigration statutes state the President’s authority is limited to under the law.

This authority, which Congress has allowed to be almost limitless in practice, allows the President to exclude any individual for any reason. The courts under Derrick Watson, the Ninth Circus, and a few courts under and including the Fourth Circuit have all declared that the President cannot use religion as a reason to exclude refugees and other immigrants.

Even though the order never mentions religion as a reason for the limitation of travel from these countries, the courts have looked at President Trump’s speeches and campaign statements from the 2016 campaign as evidence of his “true” intentions to base their rulings against.

Trump’s administration, rightly so, has decided to end the ongoing kangaroo court dance and head to the Supreme Court to see their response for the full travel ban. This time, the court will not be able to avoid a decision due to them delaying a hearing on the executive actions until such a time that the actions are expired.

The Ninth Circus ruled last week that the order can only be partially carried out and effectively allowed all immigration to remain unhindered. The only people who cannot immigrate to the United States are those who do not have any connection to the United States through family or were a member of a refugee program or university or some other entity within the United States.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 13 partially granted a Trump administration request to block at least temporarily a judge’s ruling that had put the new ban on hold. It ruled the government could bar entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries with no connections to the United States.

Trump’s ban was announced on Sept. 24 and replaced two previous versions that had been impeded by federal courts.

The administration’s appeal to the top U.S. court argued that the latest travel ban differed from the previous orders “both in process and in substance” and that the differences showed it “is based on national-security and foreign-affairs objectives, not religious animus.”

It also argued that even if the 9th Circuit ruled to uphold the partial ban, the Supreme Court was likely to overturn that decision as it had “the last time courts barred the President from enforcing entry restrictions on certain foreign nationals in the interest of national security.”

Last week’s appeals court ruling meant the ban would only apply to people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad who did not have connections to the United States.

Those connections are defined as family relationships and “formal, documented” relationships with U.S.-based entities such as universities and resettlement agencies. Those with family relationships that would allow entry include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

The state of Hawaii, which sued to block the restrictions, argued that federal immigration law did not give Trump the authority to impose them on six of those countries. The lawsuit did not challenge restrictions toward people from the two other countries listed in Trump’s ban, North Korea and Venezuela.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu ruled last month that Hawaii was likely to succeed with its argument.

 
NWC

Written by NWC

Sparta Report CEO. Blogger by day. Connoisseur of video games by night. Background in the medical industry.

World class hater of the United States Political Establishment and their globalism fetishes, especially immigration.

These are my rants on the issues of the day.

What do you think?

0 points
Upvote Downvote

Trump’s Department of Justice Sues to Stop Time Warner From Merging with AT&T

sen al franken

Make America Grope Again: Sen Al Franken