Newfoundland university waives fees for students hit by U.S. travel ban
Decision by appeal panel likely to come this week
ST. JOHN’S, N. L. — A Newfoundland university says the response has been overwhelming after it waived application fees for students from the seven predominantly Muslim countries targeted by a temporary U.S. immigration ban.
“Phone calls and emails are just flooding the office,” Noreen Golfman, provost and vice-president of academics at Memorial University of Newfoundland, said Tuesday in an interview from St. John’s.
“One of our senior staff is working 24-7. I’m afraid he’s going to burn out.”
Golfman confirmed Tuesday that the school has received double the number of inquiries it usually gets from students in the United States since Donald Trump was elected president Nov. 8 — and she said there was another spike after he announced the ban on Jan. 27.
So far, the school has waived the $120 fee for at least 54 applicants.
Golfman said she is not aware of any other Canadian universities making a similar offer, but she has heard others are expected to follow Memorial’s lead.
Most of the inquiries from foreign-born students are coming from those with Iranian citizenship. On campus, Iranians represent the largest group of international students, next to those of Chinese descent.
SAN FRANCISCO — A panel of appeals court judges reviewing U.S. President Donald Trump’s travel ban hammered away Tuesday at the federal government’s arguments that the states cannot challenge the order.
The hearing before the San Franciscobased 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges was the greatest legal challenge yet to the ban, which has upended travel to the U.S. for more than a week and tested the new administration’s use of executive power.
The government asked the court to restore Trump’s order, contending that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States. But several states have fought the ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations and insisted that it is unconstitutional.
The judges — two Democratic appointees and one Republican — repeatedly questioned Justice Department lawyer August Flentje on why the states should not be able to sue on behalf of their residents or on behalf of their universities, which have complained about students and faculty getting stranded overseas.
Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama, asked whether the government has any evidence connecting the seven predominantly Muslim nations covered by the ban to terrorism.
Flentje told the judges that the case was moving fast and the government had not yet included evidence to support the ban.
Friedland asked if the government had connected any immigrants from the seven countries to terrorism. Flentje cited a number of Somalis in the U.S. who, he said, had been connected to the al-Shabab terrorist group terror group after judges asked for evidence about the ban.
Flentje said the president has broad powers to protect national security and the right to assess risks based on the actions of Congress and his predecessor during the last two years. The final minutes of the hearing were largely devoted to whether the travel ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims.
Judge Richard Clifton wanted to know how the order could be considered discriminatory if it potentially affected only 15 per cent of the world’s Muslims, according to his calculations.
In response, Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell said that it’s remark- able to have this much evidence of discriminatory intent this early in the case. He cited Trump’s campaign statements about a Muslim ban and public statements by adviser Rudy Giuliani that he was asked to help devise a legal version of the Muslim ban.
A Justice Department lawyer argued that the courts should not question the president’s authority over national security based on newspaper articles. But under questioning from Clifton, he did not dispute that the statements were made.
Purcell said a previous ruling that halted the executive order has not harmed the U.S. government.
Instead, he told the panel, the order had harmed Washington state residents by splitting up families, holding up students trying to travel for their studies and preventing people from visiting family abroad.
Clifton said he suspects it’s a “small fraction” of the state’s residents.
The court was not expected to rule immediately, with a decision more likely to come this week, court spokesman David Madden said.
Whatever the court eventually decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene. Trump said Tuesday that he cannot believe his administration has to fight in the courts to uphold his refugee and immigration ban, a policy he says will protect the country.
“And a lot of people agree with us, believe me,” Trump said at a round table discussion with members of the National Sheriffs’ Association. “If those people ever protested, you’d see a real protest. But they want to see our borders secure and our country secure.”
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told lawmakers that the order likely should have been delayed at least long enough to brief Congress about it.
The filing with the appeals court was the latest salvo in a high-stakes legal fight surrounding Trump’s order, which temporarily suspends the country’s refugee program and immigration from seven countries with terrorism concerns.
Washington state, Minnesota and other states say the appellate court should allow a temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban to stand as their lawsuit moves through the legal system.
How and when a case might get to the Supreme Court is unclear. The travel ban itself is to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before a higher court takes up the issue.