Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday June 27 2017, @12:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the probably-gonna-be-some-unforseen-side-effects dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Ramze on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:03PM (5 children)

    by Ramze (6029) on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:03PM (#532096)

    The stay on the ban wasn't overturned -- it was temporarily partially lifted, but severely restricted. SCOTUS has yet to hear the case.

    The decision to TAKE the case was 9-0, but the decision to partially LIFT THE STAY was 6-3. Hardly unanimous.

    This wasn't a "win" for Trump, though he wants to spin it that way. All it does is allow the ban to be enforced for those coming from those countries if they have no family, residency, work, school, or other significant ties to the US to give them reason to be in the US. The main opposition to the ban was from companies (Microsoft and Oracle for example) who were concerned their VISA-holding employees and their families wouldn't be able to return to work from a trip overseas.

    This basically grandfathers in every VISA holder and their families and anyone who wants to come to the USA to visit close family as well as anyone who has been offered a job, been accepted at a university or even invited by a university or business to visit for whatever legitimate purpose.

    So... what's left to ban exactly? Vacationers? Potential immigrants who haven't been offered a job yet? It's one thing to say one is allowed to scrutinize to this level, but it's another to implement. (How exactly are they going to verify someone doesn't have the ties they claim to have? Are they going to hold someone in a cell until they get verification from a Fortune 500 company or University that they were indeed invited to speak at an event?) I doubt they bother with it until the SCOTUS case is settled sometime about a year from now.

    Talk about a hollow, temporary victory.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday June 27 2017, @10:39PM (3 children)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday June 27 2017, @10:39PM (#532176) Journal

    The stay on the ban wasn't overturned -- it was temporarily partially lifted, but severely restricted. SCOTUS has yet to hear the case.

    Good rule of thumb on this site: Whatever jmorris says, the exact opposite is true.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:38AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:38AM (#532227)

      It really is starting to look that way. I'm guessing he's far out on the ocd/aspergers/whatever spectrum and has a good handle on tech stuff, but social issues are such a mess that he just gets his worldview straight from conservative talking heads. Or maybe he just googles his favorite sites and cobbles together an answer, not vetting the sources for sings of "fakery". The possibilities are endless with someone so wacked from reality.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 28 2017, @05:57AM (1 child)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday June 28 2017, @05:57AM (#532292) Journal

        No, AC, J-Mo is an honest to goodness alt-reich goose-stepper. I've seen him drop "dindunuffin," for example, and he's outright said he wants to burn the nation down and start over. Peruse his search history to get an idea of what kind of person it is we're dealing with here.

        Please understand, there is real evil in this world, and it takes the shape of humans at times. In every era there are people who have willingly made themselves vessels for the devouring void between the stars, and this is one of them.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @04:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @04:05PM (#532505)

          Pretty sure he was a cryogenically frozen Hitler Youth.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 28 2017, @05:46AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday June 28 2017, @05:46AM (#532288) Homepage
    The BBC journo, Anthony Zurcher, is a wackjob that would be more at home on Faux News.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves