Partial travel ban in effect; challenge filed
Hawaii disputes terms again; critics call ban arbitrary.
— The WASHINGTON Trump administration on Thursday moved once again to fulfill one of the president’s most contentious campaign promises, banning entry into the United States by refugees from around the world and prohibiting most visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries the president deems dangerous.
Once again, the state of Hawaii, which in March had succeeded in getting the travel ban by President Donald Trump temporarily sidelined by a federal court, filed a legal challenge.
Freed this week by the Supreme Court to partially revive the ban, administration officials said the U.S. border would remain shut to those groups unless individuals can prove they have close family members living in the United States, or are coming to attend a university or accept a job offer.
Officials said those exceptions would be defined narrowly. In a lengthy cable sent to embassies and consulates around the world, officials said that extended family connections would not be sufficient to evade the president’s ban on entry. Parents, including in-laws, are considered “close family,” but grandparents are not. Step-siblings and half-siblings will be allowed, but not nieces or nephews.
Critics immediately denounced the administration, accusing the White House of violating the Supreme Court’s directive to exempt anyone with a “bona fide” family connection to the United States. Hawaii filed a court challenge and civil rights groups vowed to also challenge what they said was a renewed attempt by Trump to keep Muslims out of the country.
“It remains clear that President Trump’s purpose is to disparage and condemn Muslims,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, adding that the government’s new ban on entry “does not comport with the Supreme Court’s order, is arbitrary, and is not tied to any legitimate government purpose.”
The decision by the administration to revive and aggressively enforce the travel ban is certain to keep the intense debate about the United States’ borders going into the Supreme Court’s fall term, when the justices are scheduled to decide the legal fate of Trump’s efforts to restrict entry by particular groups.
Officials said Thursday they were determined to “meet the intent of the presidential directive” within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court.
Lawyers representing people who have been blocked from visiting the United States described the government’s actions as mean-spirited and said they made distinctions about family relations that did not make sense.
“Allowing a U.S. citizen to bring their Syrian motherin-law but not their Syrian brother-in-law doesn’t make us any safer, and doesn’t even really make any sense,” said Gadeir Abbas, a staff lawyer on the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Trump has said his travel ban does not directly target Muslims, but all countries on the list — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — are majority Muslim.
The guidelines followed the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to allow parts of the Trump administration’s revised travel ban to move forward while imposing certain limits until the court hears arguments on the scope of presidential power over border security and immigration.