SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Protestors hold up signs in front of effigies of U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin during in a demonstration on January 29, 2017 in Seattle, Washington, against Trump's executive order banning Muslims from certain countries. The rally was one of several in the area over the weekend. (Photo by Stephen Brashear/Getty Images)
As 'Disgraceful' Muslim Ban Looms, Rights Groups Vow Resistance
New guidelines "should leave no doubt that the Trump administration will exploit any opportunity to advance its xenophobic agenda."
Jun 29, 2017
As President Donald Trump's "disgraceful and discriminatory" Muslim ban--which was partially reinstated by the Supreme Court earlier this week--is set to go into effect Thursday night, rights groups and attorneys are preparing to challenge the administration's "arbitrary" restrictions on who is permitted to enter the country.
"It remains clear that President Trump's purpose is to disparage and condemn Muslims."
--Omar Jadwat, ACLUCamille Mackler, director of legal initiatives at the New York Immigration Coalition, told CBS New York that lawyers will be ready to offer assistance to immigrants should any problems arise.
"We have an army of over 1,000 lawyers who have their back and are ready to go back out to [the John F. Kennedy International Airport] if that becomes necessary," she said.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that only those who could demonstrate a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" would be allowed entry.
But, as the New York Times noted, the "meaning of 'bona fide relationship' was not precisely explained, and the phrase has created much uncertainty for migrants and others seeking to travel to the United States from the six countries--Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen--covered by the revised travel ban that President Trump issued in March."
Late Wednesday night, the State Department sent a diplomatic cable--published by Reuters--offering its interpretation of the court's mandate and detailing who would be exempt from the ban.
It judged that those with "close family"--defined as "a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half"--living in the U.S. would be permitted to enter.
"'Close family' does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiances, and any other 'extended' family members," the cable adds.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly objected to this definition, calling it "extremely restrictive."
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, argued the State Department's directive "does not comport with the Supreme Court's order, is arbitrary, and is not tied to any legitimate government purpose."
"It remains clear that President Trump's purpose is to disparage and condemn Muslims," Jadwat concluded.
Karen Tumlin, director of the National Immigration Law Center, agreed, saying in a statement that the "reported guidance would slam the door shut on so many who have waited for months or years to be reunited with their families."
The State Department's guidelines "should leave no doubt that the Trump administration will exploit any opportunity to advance its xenophobic agenda," Tumlin concluded.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
As President Donald Trump's "disgraceful and discriminatory" Muslim ban--which was partially reinstated by the Supreme Court earlier this week--is set to go into effect Thursday night, rights groups and attorneys are preparing to challenge the administration's "arbitrary" restrictions on who is permitted to enter the country.
"It remains clear that President Trump's purpose is to disparage and condemn Muslims."
--Omar Jadwat, ACLUCamille Mackler, director of legal initiatives at the New York Immigration Coalition, told CBS New York that lawyers will be ready to offer assistance to immigrants should any problems arise.
"We have an army of over 1,000 lawyers who have their back and are ready to go back out to [the John F. Kennedy International Airport] if that becomes necessary," she said.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that only those who could demonstrate a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" would be allowed entry.
But, as the New York Times noted, the "meaning of 'bona fide relationship' was not precisely explained, and the phrase has created much uncertainty for migrants and others seeking to travel to the United States from the six countries--Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen--covered by the revised travel ban that President Trump issued in March."
Late Wednesday night, the State Department sent a diplomatic cable--published by Reuters--offering its interpretation of the court's mandate and detailing who would be exempt from the ban.
It judged that those with "close family"--defined as "a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half"--living in the U.S. would be permitted to enter.
"'Close family' does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiances, and any other 'extended' family members," the cable adds.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly objected to this definition, calling it "extremely restrictive."
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, argued the State Department's directive "does not comport with the Supreme Court's order, is arbitrary, and is not tied to any legitimate government purpose."
"It remains clear that President Trump's purpose is to disparage and condemn Muslims," Jadwat concluded.
Karen Tumlin, director of the National Immigration Law Center, agreed, saying in a statement that the "reported guidance would slam the door shut on so many who have waited for months or years to be reunited with their families."
The State Department's guidelines "should leave no doubt that the Trump administration will exploit any opportunity to advance its xenophobic agenda," Tumlin concluded.
As President Donald Trump's "disgraceful and discriminatory" Muslim ban--which was partially reinstated by the Supreme Court earlier this week--is set to go into effect Thursday night, rights groups and attorneys are preparing to challenge the administration's "arbitrary" restrictions on who is permitted to enter the country.
"It remains clear that President Trump's purpose is to disparage and condemn Muslims."
--Omar Jadwat, ACLUCamille Mackler, director of legal initiatives at the New York Immigration Coalition, told CBS New York that lawyers will be ready to offer assistance to immigrants should any problems arise.
"We have an army of over 1,000 lawyers who have their back and are ready to go back out to [the John F. Kennedy International Airport] if that becomes necessary," she said.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that only those who could demonstrate a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" would be allowed entry.
But, as the New York Times noted, the "meaning of 'bona fide relationship' was not precisely explained, and the phrase has created much uncertainty for migrants and others seeking to travel to the United States from the six countries--Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen--covered by the revised travel ban that President Trump issued in March."
Late Wednesday night, the State Department sent a diplomatic cable--published by Reuters--offering its interpretation of the court's mandate and detailing who would be exempt from the ban.
It judged that those with "close family"--defined as "a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half"--living in the U.S. would be permitted to enter.
"'Close family' does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiances, and any other 'extended' family members," the cable adds.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly objected to this definition, calling it "extremely restrictive."
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, argued the State Department's directive "does not comport with the Supreme Court's order, is arbitrary, and is not tied to any legitimate government purpose."
"It remains clear that President Trump's purpose is to disparage and condemn Muslims," Jadwat concluded.
Karen Tumlin, director of the National Immigration Law Center, agreed, saying in a statement that the "reported guidance would slam the door shut on so many who have waited for months or years to be reunited with their families."
The State Department's guidelines "should leave no doubt that the Trump administration will exploit any opportunity to advance its xenophobic agenda," Tumlin concluded.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.