US begins limited travel ban
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Thursday moved aggressively 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.
Freed by the Supreme Court to partially revive President Donald Trump’s travel ban, administration officials said the U.S. border would be shut to those groups unless specific 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, for instance. 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. Civil-rights groups vowed to 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 ACLU’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.”
Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said he’s concerned that the Trump administration may be violating the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Chin said many of the people that the government decided to exclude are considered “close family” in Hawaii.
A federal judge in Hawaii is expected to issue a ruling
on Hawaii’s motion asking for clarification that the administration can’t enforce the ban against fiances or relatives not defined by the administration guidelines.
One week after taking office, Trump shut down travel from seven mostly Muslim countries, including Iraq, and blocked entry by all refugees, saying that a “pause” was necessary to evaluate the vetting of visitors from places that the government deemed dangerous.
Critics assailed that first order as a veiled attempt to make good on Trump’s campaign promise to impose a “Muslim ban.” After courts blocked it, the president issued a modified order directed at six countries, not including Iraq. That order was blocked as well, with federal appeals courts ruling that it discriminated based on religion, in violation of the First Amendment, and exceeded the president’s statutory authority.
The decision Thursday by the administration to revive and aggressively enforce another version of
the president’s travel ban is certain to keep the intense debate about America’s 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 they were determined to “meet the intent of the presidential directive” within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court, which issued an interim opinion when it agreed to consider the issue in its next term. Administration officials said their definition of a “family connection” was based on existing immigration law and directions from the court.
Hours before the new guidelines went into effect Thursday evening, officials predicted little of the chaos that engulfed airports in January, when the president issued his original travel ban. This time, officials said, people already booked to travel to the United States would be allowed to enter. And they made it clear that legal permanent residents were not affected by the ban.
But the administration’s newest move could prompt another wave of litigation as advocates for those trying to enter the United States ask courts to halt enforcement of the ban. Already, lawyers in Washington have filed a lawsuit asking the court to allow the entry of refugees with no “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
Other 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 practical 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.