Posts

Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect

by

by Aysha Qamar

This week, the Supreme Court issued a decision on Trump’s Third Travel Ban, referred to as the Muslim Ban 3.0, that allows it to take full effect. This is the first time a court has allowed the travel ban, affecting travelers from eight countries, six of them being Muslim-majority countries, in its entirety immediately. 

The original ban, which took effect only seven days after President Trump took office, was quickly declared unconstitutional by a District Court Judge in Seattle. That decision was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit. The Ban blocked entry of Muslim majority country travelers including those from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen- this resulted in it being referred to as the ‘Muslim Ban.’

When the administration revised and reissued a second ban in March, two federal judges declared it unconstitutional before the ban took effect. While the administration lost its initial appeals of those rulings at the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the Supreme Court allowed a limited part of the second ban to go into effect pending resolution of the appeal in June.

The third travel ban no longer includes Sudan, but continues the restrictions on Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. It also bans individuals traveling from Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela.

According to a statement by the State Department, no visas would be revoked under the new vetting procedures and the restrictions are not intended to be permanent. They “may be lifted as countries work with the U.S. government to ensure the safety of Americans.”

Who does the Muslim Ban 3.0 effect?

Eight countries including: Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Venezuela and North Korea.

Chad, Libya, and Yemen: All immigrant visas and non-immigrant business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas are suspended from entering the U.S. 

Iran: Immigrant and nonimmigrant entry will be suspended for Iranian nationals except for individuals with a student visa (F Visa), exchange program visa (J Visa) or vocational visa (M Visa). Individuals with a F, J, or M visas will be subject to enhanced screening. 

Somalia: Immigrant visas are suspended for Somali nationals. Non-immigrant visas are permitted, but will be subjected to heightened screening.

Syria and North Korea: All immigrant and non-immigrant entry into the U.S. is suspended. 

Venezuela: Government officials and immediate family members of individuals involved in Venezuela’s screening and vetting procedures cannot enter on non immigrants business (B-1), tourist (B-2) and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas. Nationals of Venezuela who are visa holders are subject to additional measures.

Citizens and Green Card Holders are not impacted. Those with dual nationalities or two passports, if traveling using a passport from a country not included in the list are not impacted. Those granted asylum in the United States or refugees already admitted are also not effected by the travel ban.

Pakistani Supreme Court Announces Verdict on Panama Papers Case

by

By Munir M Hasan, PhD

The judgment of the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan on Panama Papers case has been announced. It is of course a matter of satisfaction and happiness for the people of Pakistan that a corrupt ruler of Pakistan has been disqualified, but still there are some aspects of this decision which are not very satisfactory. I have been trying to understand them and after deliberation for a couple of days I am now in a position to write something about it. My observations are as follows:

  • The former Prime Minister has been declared “not honest in terms of Section 99(1)(f) of the ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. Basically, Article 62 of the Constitution of Pakistan is there to determine the Qualification for membership of Parliament, and Article 63 deals with the Disqualification of membership. Disqualifying him on the basis of Article 62 for hiding some information at the time of filing his nomination papers during parliamentary elections of 2013, is a judgment on the violation of election rules and it is not a disqualification on the Panama Papers case.
  • Hiding some information before the authorities is such an offense which is usually done by a large majority of people even in ordinary life. Many service personnel in Pakistan do a part-time or full time second job, or are involved in a business to ease their livelihood. However, this second job is never declared. Businessmen and industrialists never show their full income. Even in civilized countries many people, in addition to their regular jobs, earn some money working on cash. And many, if not all, do not declare this cash income. So, this charge is not as serious as many other offenses of the former Prime Minister.
  • During this hearing, there were many much stronger points on which the Prime Minister could have been disqualified. These may include, lying before the honorable Court, forgery and filing forged documents in the Court, and the circumstantial and documentary evidences of his and his family’s corruption during his tenure as Prime Minister, which could have made him liable for disqualification under Article 63 of the Constitution. Strangely enough, these serious offenses have not been considered for his disqualification.
  • Disqualification under Article 63 not only would have made the Prime Minister disqualified, but also some members of his family would have been disqualified. Disqualifying him under Article 62 seems to be a special favor to the former Prime Minister and to his family.
  • In the initial stage of this hearing, many senior learned lawyers and some former senior judges of the apex court have been giving their opinion that there were so many clear evidences before the court that the decision could have been announced in a week time. However, it took almost 15 months to decide the case only partially.
  • I said “partially” because only the disqualification of the Prime Minister has been announced. After the investigation by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) many strong documentary proofs are available against the former Prime Minister and his family. However, no punishment has been announced for the Prime Minister and to any member of his family.
  • The references have been ordered against the former Prime Minister and his family members for investigation by the NAB and decision by the NAB Court. The NAB has already been declared as “Dead” by one of the honorable Judges of the Bench. What wonders a dead body can do? It is anybody’s guess. Even if a Judge of the Supreme Court supervises the working of this proceeding, he will only make sure that this trial is completed in the allotted time, but he will never be able to influence on the NAB to make fair cases for the trial.
  • Even if the NAB Court does not request for the enhancement of the allotted time of six months and these cases are decided within the allotted time, then there will be a chain of appeals and reviews which may take years to finally decide the cases.
  • Disqualification under Article 62 of the Constitution of Pakistan is not a punishment. Article 62 only deals with the eligibility of a candidate to contest the elections. So, if the court proceedings for 15 months with all the proofs of corruption could not punish one person – the “Don of Corruption” and “Head of Scicilian Mafia” – then how much time will it take to punish a few hundreds of those whose name are given in the Panama Papers, and thousands of other corrupt persons whose names are not given in Panama Papers?

The two elephants are still strong and healthy, and the field is still open for their fighting. I don’t want to disappoint the people of Pakistan. I have only expressed my assessment of the events. This happiness of the people of Pakistan may not last for long time.

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Block Travel Ban Ruling

by

by Aysha Qamar

The U.S. Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that prevented the President’s travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies, Friday.

In a court filing, the administration asked the justices to overturn Thursday’s decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, that limited those affected by the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six predominately Muslim countries.

The Hawaii federal judge ruled that grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and siblings-in-law must be added to the list of close family members, who can still get visas to travel to the United States during the 90 days while the executive order is in force.

Last month, the Supreme Court announced it would hear a challenge to the travel ban later this year, but partially lifted an injunction that barred the order from taking effect.

The State Department said on June 29 that only parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, and children-in-law would be exempt from the ban on visas for travel.

It acted after the Supreme Court stated that while aspects of the travel ban could be enforced, people abroad with credible claim of a “bona fide relationship” to a person or entity in the U.S. would be exempt and allowed into the country.

In response to a motion by the state of Hawaii to broaden the exceptions, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson said the State Department’s definition of close family member “represents the antithesis of common sense.” Grandparents, he said “are the epitome of close family members” and past Supreme Court decisions have defined the term much more broadly.

Watson, appointed by former President Barack Obama, was one of the federal judges who issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s initial and revised ban.

While the Trump administration argued that directive did not include grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, and nephews-Watson said that the administration’s definition of “bona fide relationship” was too narrow, and ruled that grandparents were also among those allowed into the country.

During the court filling, the Justice Department said Watson’s ruling on refugees would make the Supreme Court’s decision on that part of the executive order “effectively meaningless” as it included not just “close” family members but all.

The ruling would allow for refugees to continue to resettle in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000, which was set by the executive order.

While the Supreme Court is currently not in session, it can hear emergency requests.

The administration’s application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, responsible for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices together. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant a request.

“The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the executive branch’s duty to protect the nation,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

Lawyers for the Trump administration have asked the Supreme Court to let the government use the list it compiled in June for deciding who can apply for a visa under the limited enforcement of the president’s executive order on travel.

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Travel Ban, Trump Welcomes Indians

by

by Tina Lapsia

Just after Muslims around the world finished observing the holy month of Ramadan as they celebrated Eid, the Supreme Court on Monday, June 26 lifted most of the temporary injunctions placed on President Trump’s travel ban that was struck down by multiple circuit courts.

The Court will hear the merits of the actual case against the ban, which temporarily restricts travel to the US by citizens from six majority-Muslim countries (Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) and from all refugees, in October.

In partially upholding the ban by a unanimous vote, the Court wrote that it may “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” It continued, “But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the government’s compelling need to provide for the nation’s security.” However, the Court also warned the Trump administration to continue reviewing its vetting procedures that it had put on hold while waiting for a decision on the travel ban, which bans travel from the six countries for 90 days and for all refugees for 120 days.

President Trump expressed his support for the highest court’s opinion, tweeting:

Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court did not cite President Trump’s prior tweets about the travel ban, which were rumored and predicted to hurt him in the case as they did in the lower courts. Some of his incendiary remarks included:

Now that the travel ban is in the clear until at least October, the Department of Homeland Security is expected to begin its implementation on Thursday, June 28. In a statement released on Monday, the Department said it would work closely with the State and Justice Departments to make sure the travel ban does not cause the same level of widespread chaos as when the first travel ban went into effect in January. “The implementation of the executive order will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry,” DHS promised in the Monday statement.

Ironically, the news of the partial reinstatement of the “Muslim ban” also came on the heels of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first visit with President Trump at the White House on Monday.

Reaffirming the United States’ promise to strengthen its business and educational ties with India and sealing it with a hug (see below), President Trump after his talks with Prime Minister Modi also announced on Tuesday that he welcomes Indian visitors to America through an expedited process as part of India’s entry into the International Expedited Traveler Initiative (Global Entry Program). The program, which is run by the US Customs and Border Protection, allows for faster clearance for pre-approved travelers to the United States and also includes citizens from Switzerland and the United Kingdom. As India’s relationship with the United States has deepened since Prime Minister Modi’s multiple meetings with President Obama, this comes as more good news for desis living abroad.

Source: CNN

From banning certain people of color into the country one moment to facilitating the ease for certain tourists of color to enter the country the next, the unpredictability of President Trump’s decisions regarding foreigners certainly may cause anxiety and confusion for many. We now just have to hold our breaths until October and hope that the Supreme Court recognizes the unconstitutionality of the President’s prejudiced attitudes towards Muslims and/or that the President does not try to enforce another radical executive order.