Trump's New Travel Ban Beating a Dead Horse

Mar 14, 2017, 00:06
Trump's New Travel Ban Beating a Dead Horse

California's attorney general said on Monday that it would be joining Washington in its lawsuit; other states like Minnesota, New York and OR have also signed on to the challenge.

The first order was halted by US district judge James Robart in Seattle after Washington state sued, claiming the order was discriminatory and violated the US Constitution.

The original travel ban, which caused widespread chaos and protests at airports when first implemented, was rescinded after the state of Washington won a nationwide federal court order blocking further enforcement of the policy.

A hearing on the state's request will be heard on Wednesday.

Trump's revised travel ban goes into effect on March 16 and seeks to avoid numerous problems associated with his initial executive order, which caused massive protests and was later nullified by a federal appellate court.

Ferguson filed new documents after a federal judge last week said he wouldn't immediately rule on whether his restraining order against the old ban applies to the new Trump executive order.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan has reportedly halted interviews for people applying for special visas, which are created to help those who assisted U.S. troops in Afghanistan and whose lives are now in danger because of it. Afghanistan is not on the list of six countries temporarily banned from travel to the US.

And it is still the case, as U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema found in regard to Trump's first order, that a travel ban "may be counterproductive to its stated goal" of keeping the nation safe.

White House: Our Employees Don't Have To Follow Ethics Rules
A lawyer for the administration even said later that many ethics agency rules do not apply to the President's staff . There was no mention of discipline in the letter .

After the Trump ban was blocked the first time, the approval process restarted for the Syrian family and they're now preparing to travel to Jordan for visa interviews at the US embassy, the last step before USA customs officials decide whether to issue them visas.

The decision has no wider ramifications for the fate of Trump's revised executive order banning entry from six Muslim countries. In other cases, specific cohorts of immigrants would be granted travel or visa waivers on a case-by-case basis, replacing the original order's blanket ban.

It's unclear whether the new ban applies to asylum seekers like the Syrian family. But in January, after Trump's first order, she introduced two bills in Congress that she said were meant to prevent Trump from blocking entire categories of immigrants unilaterally.

"Accordingly, the court also declines to resolve the apparent dispute between the parties concerning the applicability of the court's injunctive order to the New Executive Order until such time as an amended complaint that addresses the New Executive Order is properly before the court", Robart wrote.

Another federal judge in Wisconsin, meanwhile, granted a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the new ban, but only against one Syrian family.

Unlike the original order, the new one says current visa holders won't be affected, and it removes language that would give priority to religious minorities.

The administration has argued the ban is necessary for national security reasons, though many diplomatic and national security professionals have said they disagree with that assessment, and the new ban would probably not have kept out anyone responsible for a fatal terrorist attack since 2001.