قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / US High Court reviews Trump's power to block Muslim immigrants

US High Court reviews Trump's power to block Muslim immigrants



Washington (AFP) – President Donald Trump's efforts to ban Muslim immigrants from several countries will go to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to decide whether his argument to assert national security interests has been adversely affected by religious bias.

known as Trump v. Hawaii will address the president's wide-ranging powers to set immigration policy, which, according to Trump's travel ban since January 2017, is one of his key policies.

Legal experts say the court hate it usually to decide on executive powers

But the focus of the travel ban on Muslim countries has made Trump the target of allegations that it violated constitutional religious protection, which led to lower courts, including "This case has it all: weighty constitutional issues, complex legal issues, and a dispute over whether the power of a president really sets limits to migration," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a law professor at the United States Cornell University.

"Whatever the court decides, the ruling will have profound implications for Americans, immigrants and the president."

– Muslim ban –

One of Trump's first official acts when he took office in January 2017 was the proclamation a 90-day ban for travelers from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

The sudden move caused havoc on airports despite entry visas and sending some families back to their home countries. Tens of thousands of legal visas have been revoked.

The order was issued on grounds of national security – supposedly to protect the country from terrorist attacks – and officials said the deadline would allow for review and improvement of immigration control in these countries

But critics successfully argued in court, that it was essentially aimed at Muslims.

They noted that during the election last year, Trump repeatedly attacked the Muslim immigrants he said, "do not assimilate" and "hate" us. "

And his election campaign said Trump" demanded a complete and complete closure of Muslims entering the United States until our country's officials can find out what's going on. "

was illegal because of what they called an implicit bias against Muslims and violated the US Constitution.

The ban was reissued twice, each time with adjustments aimed at circumventing such decisions Version 3.0 in September was perpetual and changed countries, including Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria, adding Chad, another predominantly Muslim country.

It also included North Korea and certain officials from Venezuela the ruling groups are of a cosmetic nature: North Koreans are already essentially excluded from the United States, and economic sanctions have prevented Venezuelan officials from coming.

Lower courts have blocked version 3.0 again, but the government has successfully appealed the Supreme Court, the court persuades to allow execution while the Case checked.

This has made it impossible for family members, businessmen, and students from these countries to come to the United States, even if they have been cleared through security checks.

– & # 39; Legally useless commands & # 39; –

Normally, the court should review the details of only the third travel ban version.

But lawyers say that it can not ignore the arbitrary edition of the first two versions and the links to Trump election promises and anti-Muslim statements.

"The Court should note the collapse of internal norms and legal processes in the executive In the first year of government, they have led to a series of legally impractical orders – as well as the president's long public affair against those affected by this policy Minorities, "said attorneys W. Neil Eggleston and Amanda Elbogen in an analysis by Just Security.

Nevertheless, Trump's case could be bolstered by the lifting of the ban on travelers from Chad on 10 April. The government said that the country has clarified questions regarding immigration checks – what the security problem implied is behind the ban.


Source link