| 
		Some airlines board barred passengers 
		after blow to Trump travel ban 
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [February 04, 2017] 
		By Alexander Cornwell 
 DUBAI (Reuters) - Citizens of seven mainly 
		Muslim countries banned from the United States by President Donald Trump 
		can resume boarding U.S.-bound flights, several major airlines said on 
		Saturday, after a Seattle judge blocked the executive order.
 
 Qatar Airways was the first to say it would allow passengers from Iran, 
		Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to fly to U.S. cities if 
		they had valid documents.
 
 Air France, Spain's Iberia and Germany's Lufthansa all followed suit 
		after the federal judge's ruling, which the White House said it planned 
		to appeal as soon as possible.
 
 But the websites of two other major Gulf airlines, Etihad and Emirates, 
		still carried notices informing passengers of Trump's original Jan. 27 
		order.
 
 The travel ban, which Trump says is needed to protect the United States 
		against Islamist militants, sparked travel chaos around the world and 
		condemnation by rights groups who said it was racist and discriminatory.
 
 U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines they could board 
		travelers affected within hours of Friday's ruling, but budget airline 
		Norwegian, which operates transatlantic flights including from London 
		and Oslo, said many uncertainties remained about the legal position.
 
		
		 
		"It's still very unclear," spokeswoman Charlotte Holmbergh Jacobsson 
		said. "We advise passengers to contact the U.S. embassy ... We have to 
		follow the U.S. rules."
 In Cairo, aviation sources said Egypt Air and other airlines had told 
		their sales offices of Friday's ruling and would allow people previously 
		affected by the ban to book flights.
 
 But for some who had changed their travel plans following the ban, the 
		order was not enough reassurance.
 
 In Dubai, Tariq Laham, 32, and his Polish fiancee Natalia had scrapped 
		plans to travel to the United States after they get married in July in 
		Poland. Laham said the couple would not reverse their decision.
 
 "It is just too risky," said Laham, a Syrian who works as a director of 
		commercial operations at a multinational technology company. "Every day 
		you wake up and there is a new decision."
 
 VISA SUSPENSIONS
 
 Trump's order caused chaos at airports across the United States last 
		week. Virtually all refugees were also barred, upending the lives of 
		thousands of people who had spent years seeking asylum in the U.S.
 
 The State Department said on Friday that almost 60,000 visas were 
		suspended following Trump's order. It was not clear whether that 
		suspension was automatically revoked or what reception travelers with 
		such visas might get at U.S. airports.
 
 The Washington state lawsuit was the first to test the broad 
		constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Judge James Robart, a 
		George W. Bush appointee, explicitly made his ruling apply across the 
		country, while other judges in similar cases have so far issued orders 
		concerning only specific individuals.
 
 The challenge in Seattle was brought by the state of Washington and 
		later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states 
		have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys 
		general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.
 
		
		 
		Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm 
		from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded 
		universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com and Expedia, both based 
		in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the 
		travel restrictions harmed their businesses.
 Tech companies, which rely on talent from around the world, have been 
		increasingly outspoken in their opposition to the Trump administration's 
		anti-immigrant policies.
 
 Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the 
		"litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also 
		questioned the use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States 
		as a justification for the ban.
 
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
            
			Opponents of U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel 
			ban greet international travelers at Logan Airport in Boston, 
			Massachusetts, U.S. February 3, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder 
            
			 
			Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by 
			individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban 
			since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart 
			said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”
 "OUTRAGEOUS ORDER"
 
 The White House said in a statement: “At the earliest possible time, 
			the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this 
			outrageous order and defend the executive order of the president, 
			which we believe is lawful and appropriate."
 
 It added: "The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland 
			and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to 
			protect the American people."
 
 Washington Governor Jay Inslee celebrated the decision as a victory 
			for the state, adding: "No person - not even the president - is 
			above the law."
 
 The judge's decision was welcomed by groups protesting the ban.
 
 “This order demonstrates that federal judges throughout the country 
			are seeing the serious constitutional problems with this order,” 
			said Nicholas Espiritu, a staff attorney at the National Immigration 
			Law Center.
 
 But the fluid legal situation was illustrated by the fact that 
			Robart's ruling came just hours after a federal judge in Boston 
			declined to extend a temporary restraining order allowing some 
			immigrants into the United States from countries affected by Trump's 
			three-month ban.
 
 A Reuters poll earlier this week indicated that the immigration ban 
			has popular support, with 49 percent of Americans agreeing with the 
			order and 41 percent disagreeing. Some 53 percent of Democrats said 
			they "strongly disagree" with Trump's action while 51 percent of 
			Republicans said they "strongly agree."
 
			
			 
			At least one company, the ride-hailing giant Uber, was moving 
			quickly Friday night to take advantage of the ruling.
 CEO Travis Kalanick, who quit Trump's business advisory council this 
			week in the face of a fierce backlash from Uber customers and the 
			company's many immigrant drivers, said on Twitter: "I just chatted 
			with our head of litigation Angela, who’s buying a whole bunch of 
			airline tickets ASAP!! #homecoming #fingerscrossed"
 
 (Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo, Dan Levine in 
			Seattle, Scott Malone in Boston, Georgina Prodhan in Frankfurt, 
			Laurence Frost in Paris, Asma Alsharif in Cairo, Jesus Aguado in 
			Madrid, Mica Rosenberg in New York, Brian Snyder in Boston and 
			Lawrence Hurley, Lesley Wroughton, Julia Edwards and Susan Heavey in 
			Washington, Tom Arnold and Alexander Cornwell in Dubai; Writing by 
			Mark Trevelyan; Editing by Alexander Smith)
 
			[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
			reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
			
			
			 |