Archive for Sunday, January 29, 2017

Federal judge bars deportations under Trump travel ban

People participate in a peaceful demonstration against President Donald Trump's immigration policies at International Arrivals Hall inside Philadelphia International Airport, Saturday, Jan. 28, 2017. (Joseph Kaczmarek/The Philadelphia Inquirer via AP)

People participate in a peaceful demonstration against President Donald Trump's immigration policies at International Arrivals Hall inside Philadelphia International Airport, Saturday, Jan. 28, 2017. (Joseph Kaczmarek/The Philadelphia Inquirer via AP)

January 29, 2017

Advertisement

— A federal judge's emergency order has temporarily barred the U.S. from deporting people from nations subject to President Donald Trump's travel ban. The judge said travelers who had been detained had a strong argument that their legal rights had been violated.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement early Sunday that said the court ruling would not affect the overall implementation of the White House order and it affected a relatively small number of travelers who were inconvenienced by security procedures upon their return.

The emergency order was issued by U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York Saturday night after lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union filed a court petition on behalf of people from seven predominantly Muslim nations who were detained at airports across the country as the ban took effect.

The judge's order addressed only a portion of Trump's executive action. As the decision was announced, cheers broke out in crowds of demonstrators who had gathered at American airports and outside the Brooklyn courthouse where the ruling was issued.

The order barred U.S. border agents from removing anyone who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It also covered anyone with an approved refugee application.

It was unclear how quickly the judge's order might affect people in detention, or whether it would allow others to resume flying.

"Realistically, we don't even know if people are going to be allowed onto the planes," ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said. "This order would protect people who they allow to come here and reach U.S. soil."

DHS said the court ruling would have no effect on the overall executive action.

"President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety," according to the DHS statement.

Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, said: "Nothing in the Brooklyn judge's order in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president's executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect."

Under Trump's order, it had appeared that an untold number of foreign-born U.S. residents now traveling outside the U.S. could be stuck overseas for at least 90 days even though they held permanent residency green cards or other visas. However, an official with the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump's order had been prevented from entering the U.S.

Some foreign nationals who were allowed to board flights before the order was signed Friday had been detained at U.S. airports, told they were no longer welcome. The DHS official who briefed reporters by phone said 109 people who were in transit on airplanes had been denied entry and 173 had not been allowed to get on their planes overseas.

In her three-page order, Donnelly wrote that without the stay "there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders and other individuals from nations subject to the Jan. 27, 2017, executive order."

Trump billed his sweeping executive order as a necessary step to stop "radical Islamic terrorists" from coming to the U.S. It included a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen and a 120-day suspension of the U.S. refugee program.

Trump's order singled out Syrians for the most aggressive ban, indefinitely blocking entry for anyone from that country, including those fleeing civil war.

The directive did not do anything to prevent attacks from homegrown extremists who were already in America, a primary concern of federal law enforcement officials. It also omitted Saudi Arabia, home to most of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

As a candidate Trump pledged to temporarily ban Muslims from coming to the U.S., then said he would implement "extreme vetting" for people from countries with significant terror concerns. He told reporters Saturday the order is "not a Muslim ban."

"It's working out very nicely," Trump said of the implementation of his order. "We're going to have a very, very strict ban and we're going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years."

The order sparked protests at several of the nation's international airports, including New York's Kennedy and Chicago's O'Hare and facilities in Minneapolis and Dallas-Fort Worth. In San Francisco, hundreds blocked the street outside the arrival area of the international terminal. Several dozen demonstrated at the airport in Portland, Oregon, briefly disrupting light rail service while hoisting signs that read "Portland Coffee Is From Yemen" and chanting anti-Trump slogans. U.S. lawmakers and officials around the globe also criticized the move.

Two of the first people blocked from entering the United States were Iraqis with links to the U.S. military. Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi were detained by immigration officials after landing at New York's Kennedy airport Friday night. Both had been released by Saturday night after their lawyers intervened.

The government can exempt foreign nationals from the ban if their entry is deemed in the national interest. But it was not immediately clear how that exemption might be applied.

Diplomats from the seven countries singled out by Trump's order would still be allowed into the U.S.

Those already in the U.S. with a visa or green card would be allowed to stay, according to the official, who wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the details of how Trump's order was being put in place and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Trump's order also directed U.S. officials to review information as needed to fully vet foreigners asking to come to the U.S. and draft a list of countries that don't provide that information. That left open the possibility that citizens of other countries could also face a travel ban.

The U.S. may still admit refugees on a case-by-case basis during the freeze, and the government would continue to process requests from people claiming religious persecution, "provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country."

Comments

Fred Whitehead Jr. 9 months, 3 weeks ago

"provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country."

WHAT?? HUH??? Just how does the pervert-in-chief plan to do this?? Our Constitution speaks directly to the "establishment of religion".

The Fuehrer of the Fourth Reich is emulating his hero, the Fuehrer of the Third Reich.

And our free press is in eminent danger from this fascist. The tactics of Hitler and Stalin are already in movement to shackle and obstruct our free and accurate news sources.

Andrew Applegarth 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Defining 'religious persecution' to be persecution from outside your religion and not persecution by your own religion does not violate any constitutional restrictions. You are more than welcome to follow whatever religion you want. We simply aren't going to offer you asylum from your own religion.

Greg Cooper 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Convoluted reasoning. Under this order, Christians are treated differently than Muslims. That establishes a pecking order of religions and is clearly unconstitutional.

Andrew Applegarth 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes, you suffer from convoluted reasoning. There is nothing unconstitutional about only granting asylum for external persecution. Granting it for internal persecution only moves the persecution. There is no expectation of relief when you bring the persecution (religion) with you. It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

Greg Cooper 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Being a member or follower of a particular religion is not actions not proven.

Jeff Mitchell 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Godwin's law. Fred just forfeited for all the Trump haters:)

Aaron McGrogor 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Because this is the first time anyone has ever brought up hitler when referencing trump.

Andrew Applegarth 9 months, 3 weeks ago

No, but can you remember the last time Fred posted about Trump without mentioning Hitler?

Fred Whitehead Jr. 9 months, 3 weeks ago

From Wikipedia: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[9][10] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by American lawyer, journalist and author Glenn Greenwald.[11]"

Good enough for you, Jeff?

Jeff Mitchell 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Fred, That's awesome. Just picturing you going to Wikipedia and cutting and pasting. Just made my day. Thanks:)

Bob Summers 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Liberal activist judge. No surprises here.

Does Liberal judge realize non residents do not have a right to enter, be in America? Probably not. People with the condition sing to their own music.

Alex Landazuri 9 months, 3 weeks ago

they do when they already have a visa, which if i was reading other stories correctly, are not being honored. do your homework bob.

Richard Aronoff 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Well, I see Lawrence's version of Margaret DuMont is at it again.

Dorothy: I wouldn't bet any serious amount of money on the executive order being unconstitutional. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act contains section, 212(f) that gives sweeping authority on the exclusion of certain aliens: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama all used that act. And while some people don't like letting history get in the way of their worldview, the countries in the new executive order are the same countries listed by the Obama administration as the greatest terrorism threats to the United States.

John Middleton 9 months, 3 weeks ago

And of course no complaints were heard when obama shut the doors on iraqi refugees in 2011... but then obama could do no wrong.

Henry Bown 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Jimmy Carter did the same to Iran. Someone will say no, it was different.. But I don't care. Neither do the US Customs agents who ignore the leftist judge, and are enforcing Trump's travel ban anyway.

The corporate media will show all the little children and college students they can sitting in an airport crying to sway the brainwashed masses.

Jeff Mitchell 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Folks, Argument is over. Fred invoked Hitler. Godwin's law. I doubt he's been to Auschwitz or Babi Yar. I doubt he knows what Einsatzgruppen Drei did. I really do. He can look it up on Wikipedia and follow his pattern, but he's a moron. These people have no idea of the crimes they compare Trump to. They're fools. And the best thing we can do for them is to let them go to their coffee houses and let them cry comparing Trump to Hitler. They have no idea. None.They are clueless.

Jeff Mitchell 9 months, 3 weeks ago

How many of you would've protested your king Roosevelt putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps? Not many......how about getting that racist off of the dime? Start your petition.

Henry Bown 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Trump is doing what he campaigned and won on. Delaying for 3-4 months till better vetting processes are put in place for these 7 countries, What is wrong with that?

Before you answer, where were you leftist last year or the last 8 years when Obama was bombing seven Middle Eastern countries? That he admits too.

Barack Obama: The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who’s Bombed 7 Countries, Not a peep from the left.

Donald Trump: Bans foreigners of 7 countries from entry into US until better practises are in place and the left wants to impeach him, block American travel or start a civil war if all else fails to go the lefts way.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/barack-obama-the-nobel-peace-prize-winner-whos-bombed-7-countries/208748/

Afghanistan — . Iraq — Libya —. Pakistan —. Somalia — Syria --- Yemen

Greg Cooper 9 months, 2 weeks ago

In answer to all you who have posted in support of Trump's travel ban of those of a certain religion from certain nations: at what time in your lives did you learn that it's OK to do something wrong just because it had been done by someone else before?

Yes, there have been instances when this nation put in place racist, politically motivated policies that should never have happened. Does that make the nation's continuing that trend right? No, it does not.

We have in place plenty of policies aimed at keeping immigrants of danger to ourselves out of the country. All that Trump needs to do is give credence to those policies and he would be a hero. But, no, he has to pander to his followers who, in the main, seem, like him, not to know that that none of the immigration and travel issues we face now are unique in our history.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel to keep this country moving forward. Just follow the laws as written, use common sense rather than knee-jerk sensationalism, and remember, always, that we are a nation which has set itself up as the leader of the world and need to lead as we would be led, if the circumstances were reversed.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...