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
"No part of this cruel and discriminatory ban is reasonable," said Amnesty International USA's Naureen Shah. "Congress must intervene and end the ban once and for all." (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/flickr/cc)
Amnesty Slams Latest Supreme Court Ruling on 'Cruel and Discriminatory' Muslim Ban
'Congress must intervene and end the ban once and for all.'
Jul 19, 2017
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration's appeal to broaden the scope of its "Muslim Ban 2.0" to grandparents and other close relatives, partially staying a ruling on the travel ban by a federal court in Hawaii.
But the High court put U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision to stop the administration from including in its travel ban refugees with formal assurances from resettlement organizations on hold pending a ruling from the federal appeals court in San Francisco on the issue.
The mixed ruling prompted demands from rights group that the ban be nixed entirely.
The decision from the Supreme Court, said Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA senior director of campaigns, "jeopardizes the safety of thousands of people across the world including vulnerable families fleeing war and violence."
"On top of that," she continued, "this prolonged legal battle is creating further distress and confusion for ordinary people who need to visit the U.S. to get medical attention, reunite with family, or get an education. No part of this cruel and discriminatory ban is reasonable. Congress must intervene and end the ban once and for all."
According to Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, it's good that the high court's decision requires "the government to recognize grandparents and other close family remains in place," but he said his organization is "deeply concerned about the effect of today's ruling on thousands of refugees who seek to escape dangerous situations, who have been fully vetted by the United States, and whose arrival communities, congregations, and organizations in the United States have been preparing for and anticipating."
"We look forward to eradicating the entire Muslim ban, which is unconstitutional and repugnant to our most basic values as a country," he continued.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the travel ban in October.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration's appeal to broaden the scope of its "Muslim Ban 2.0" to grandparents and other close relatives, partially staying a ruling on the travel ban by a federal court in Hawaii.
But the High court put U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision to stop the administration from including in its travel ban refugees with formal assurances from resettlement organizations on hold pending a ruling from the federal appeals court in San Francisco on the issue.
The mixed ruling prompted demands from rights group that the ban be nixed entirely.
The decision from the Supreme Court, said Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA senior director of campaigns, "jeopardizes the safety of thousands of people across the world including vulnerable families fleeing war and violence."
"On top of that," she continued, "this prolonged legal battle is creating further distress and confusion for ordinary people who need to visit the U.S. to get medical attention, reunite with family, or get an education. No part of this cruel and discriminatory ban is reasonable. Congress must intervene and end the ban once and for all."
According to Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, it's good that the high court's decision requires "the government to recognize grandparents and other close family remains in place," but he said his organization is "deeply concerned about the effect of today's ruling on thousands of refugees who seek to escape dangerous situations, who have been fully vetted by the United States, and whose arrival communities, congregations, and organizations in the United States have been preparing for and anticipating."
"We look forward to eradicating the entire Muslim ban, which is unconstitutional and repugnant to our most basic values as a country," he continued.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the travel ban in October.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration's appeal to broaden the scope of its "Muslim Ban 2.0" to grandparents and other close relatives, partially staying a ruling on the travel ban by a federal court in Hawaii.
But the High court put U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision to stop the administration from including in its travel ban refugees with formal assurances from resettlement organizations on hold pending a ruling from the federal appeals court in San Francisco on the issue.
The mixed ruling prompted demands from rights group that the ban be nixed entirely.
The decision from the Supreme Court, said Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA senior director of campaigns, "jeopardizes the safety of thousands of people across the world including vulnerable families fleeing war and violence."
"On top of that," she continued, "this prolonged legal battle is creating further distress and confusion for ordinary people who need to visit the U.S. to get medical attention, reunite with family, or get an education. No part of this cruel and discriminatory ban is reasonable. Congress must intervene and end the ban once and for all."
According to Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, it's good that the high court's decision requires "the government to recognize grandparents and other close family remains in place," but he said his organization is "deeply concerned about the effect of today's ruling on thousands of refugees who seek to escape dangerous situations, who have been fully vetted by the United States, and whose arrival communities, congregations, and organizations in the United States have been preparing for and anticipating."
"We look forward to eradicating the entire Muslim ban, which is unconstitutional and repugnant to our most basic values as a country," he continued.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the travel ban in October.
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.