Trump administration defends
interpretation of travel ban ruling
Send a link to a friend
[July 05, 2017]
By Mica Rosenberg
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The administration of
U.S. President Donald Trump opposed opening the door to grandparents
from six Muslim-majority countries on Monday, arguing in a court filing
that the government's interpretation of how to implement its temporary
travel ban is based on U.S. immigration law.
The U.S. Supreme Court in a ruling last Monday revived parts of Trump's
March 6 executive order that banned people from Iran, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, which had been blocked by lower
courts. The highest court let the ban go forward with a limited scope,
saying that it cannot apply to anyone with credible "bona fide
relationship" with a U.S. person or entity.
Trump said the measure was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. But
opponents, including states and refugee advocacy groups, sued to stop
it, disputing its security rationale and saying it discriminates against
Muslims.
After the Supreme Court ruling, the government said that a "bona fide
relationship" means close family members only: parents, spouses,
siblings and children. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles,
nieces, nephews and cousins from the six countries would still be
banned.
The government's definition, "hews closely to the categorical
determinations articulated by Congress in the Immigration and
Nationality Act," Department of Justice lawyers argued in court papers
on Monday.
The government's filing came after the State of Hawaii last week went to
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu, who originally ruled to
block the ban, to seek clarification of the Supreme Court's ruling,
arguing the government's definition of "bona fide relationship" was too
narrow.
The government said Hawaii, and refugee organizations that filed a
"friend of the court" brief in support of the state, were seeking to
apply "broader, free-hand rules."
The refugee organizations had argued that their work to resettle
refugees, a process that can take years of work in coordination with the
U.S. government, qualifies as a "bona fide" relationship with a U.S.
entity. Any refugees with such a relationship should be exempt from the
three-month ban on refugees included in the executive order, according
to the Supreme Court ruling.
[to top of second column] |
President Donald Trump waves as he boards Air force One at
Morristown municipal airport, New Jersey, U.S., en route back to
Washington after a weekend at the Trump National Golf Club in
Bedminster, July 3, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
But the government said workers with offers of employment with a
U.S. company and international students are fundamentally different
than refugees receiving help from U.S. resettlement agencies.
"A refugee's relationship with the agency flows from the government,
not from an independent relationship between the refugee and the
resettlement agency," the government said in its brief. "Indeed,
resettlement agencies typically do not have any direct contact with
the refugees they assure before their arrival in the United States."
Using the organization's interpretation would make the refugee
provisions in the executive order "largely meaningless," the
government said.
U.S. refugee resettlement is continuing as normal until July 6, the
State Department has said, around when the 50,000 cap for the fiscal
year set by Trump's executive order is likely to be reached.
Late on Thursday, before the ban went into effect, the government
reversed its position on fiancés, saying they could also qualify for
exceptions. The court filing described a 72-hour scramble to
"coordinate among multiple government agencies, and issue detailed
guidance" on how to implement the Supreme Court's ruling.
The roll out of the narrowed version of the ban was more subdued on
Friday compared to in January when Trump first signed a more
expansive version of the order, sparking protests and chaos at
airports around the country and the world.
(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg; Editing by Mary Milliken)
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|