All though the judicial system rejected an aspect of the immigration ban, the situation doesn’t seem to be clear cut
The United States' Supreme Court rejected the attempt made by the Trump administration to include relatives under the travel ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Thanks to Wednesday’s Judicial decision, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law of those residing legally within the U.S. are not covered by the 90 day ban on the entry of travelers from said six countries.
On the other hand, the court granted access to the petition of the government to tightened restrictions on refugees. During the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed, “there has to be a review of the situation and there will be a response under the rule of law”. For Trump, the idea of the travel veto is to protect the country, but his detractors affirmed that it was unconstitutional. Now the administration feels as if it has the support from the highest court in the country.
With this statement from the Supreme Court, some say that Donald Trump has won part of the battle. Now that his travel ban has been partially approved, he is still waiting on the Court of Appeals’ opinion. Even now that some of the refugees may invite families to visit, there will be more control over the new refugees’ applications and acceptance. This judicial decision could prevent the entry of up to 24,000 refugees connected to a US Resettlement Agency, according to government sources.
For the majority of detractors of president Trump, this ban is rooted in religious animus against Muslims taking into consideration what a Virginia court claimed; the version published in March of this year was dropped so the administration will have to wait until October when the nation’s highest court makes a public statement about said matter.
Latin American Post | Carlos Eduardo Gomez Avella
Copy edited by Susana Cicchetto