http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40409490
The US Supreme Court has partially lifted an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban.
The Supreme Court said in Monday's ruling: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] 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.
"All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]."
Mark this down as a win for Donald Trump. The path to entry into the US for immigrants and refugees from the affected nations, if they don't have existing ties to the US - either through family, schools or employment - just became considerably harder.
The decision marks a reaffirmation of the sweeping powers the president has traditionally been granted by the courts in areas of national security. There was fear in some quarters that the administration's ham-fisted implementation of its immigration policy could do lasting damage to the president's prerogatives. That appears not to be the case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:03PM (2 children)
That is an interesting question. What are the new procedures for vetting immigrants. Or simple what will the criteria be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:37PM
Google is your friend. [google.com] Well, at least those links will tell you what the procedures for vetting refugee immigrants in the past have been. Of course, it is still an open question what the Trump administration intends to do to beef up those vetting procedures; I mean, other than banning Muslims from entering the country.
(Score: 1) by mayo2y on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:41PM
Simple. Are you from "x". Sorry you can't come here.
Is it fair? Maybe not.
Is it constitutional? Yes.
Should we do it?
Let's vote on it.