Court Leans Towards Suspending Travel Ban
Joe Cortez August 30, 2017
Questions from judges suggests continued strike-down of family visitor bans.
A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit appears to favor continuing a limited suspension of the infamous Middle East “travel ban,” but have not tipped their cards as to how they stand on the issue of refugees entering the country. The New York Times reports the judges questions suggest they may continue to allow individuals with connections in the United States to continue entering.
The 40-minute arguments resulted in pointed questions from the panel about the January 2017 executive order, particularly when it comes to those who already have established immediate family members in the country. However, they did not comment as directly on refuges seeking asylum under the full travel ban, which currently prevents individuals from six predominantly Muslim nations: Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
“How can the government take the position that a grandmother or grandfather…of a child in the United States does not have a close familial relationship?” Judge Ronald M. Gould said, according to the Times. “Like what universe does that come from?”
The travel ban has worked its way through several courts, all giving a different interpretation of how the order should be interpreted. In June 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order that allows those who have a “close relationship” with an established person in the United States to enter. Half-siblings, step-siblings and those related by marriage are all included in the definition of “close relationship.” The full nine-justice panel will hear arguments in October.
The lawsuit was handed to the Ninth District Court by the Supreme Court, who decided not to involve themselves with this particular lawsuit. The judges have not set a timeline for a final decision.
[Photo: Shutterstock]
(MY FAT FINGER. To continue...) An opinion is not a fact, nor does your post contain any. We chose to ignore the point about foreign entry being a privilege because the rest of your rant is nonesensical. The very same argument could be made about conservative judges. My last point is why am I even taking the time to respond to all this nonsense?
Open Yaw, please site your source for your misinformation. Sean Hannity is not a factual source but a source of talking points on State news. You said it yourself, what you stated is an Opinion. An opinion is no
plaintiff forum shops at Hawaii and then 9th, the least related or impact region of travel restriction. Foreigner does not have a right to demand entry of U.S.
Haha! My comment above was just proven true by the three liberals above who disagreed with my opinion. Moreover, they clearly missed my point that foreigners do not have the right. Instead, they called me xenophobe and an uneducated. That would be news to my foreign girlfriend. Where did I state I was in favor or against the ban? No where! I just stated a fact that visiting the U.S. is not a right. Thanks again for proving my point about liberal intolerance. BLM: Supreme Court stats state otherwise.
The fact that foreigners don't have an absolute right to enter the USA is not really relevant - the issue is whether restrictions upon entry must be in accordance with basic Constitutional and democractic principles or can be arbitrary.