The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling today on President Trump’s controversial travel ban and the White House called it a “victory for national security”.
The Justices agreed to hear oral arguments in October on whether two lower courts were right to block the President’s executive order to stop immigration and travel from six mostly Muslim nations - Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The High Court also lifted the stay on most the executive order, allowing much of it to take effect as soon as this week. But there is an important exception: People who live in those six nations who have a credible claim to come to the United States can still travel here. The court’s example: family members, university students, and those with U.S. job offers.
Since President Trump signed the first version of the travel ban in the beginning of the year, the details haven’t become any less controversial.
“It involves people’s rights, so it should be a hot topic and it should be debated,” said Lourdes Casanova an immigration lawyer with Casanova Law.
Anton Alzein with the Republican Syrian Lebanese Armenian American Coalition in Boca Raton said he has always supported the President’s travel ban in order to increase national security.
“Keep the bad people out and let the good people in,” Alzein, a Syrian national, said.
The Trump administration argued the temporary ban was needed to figure out a better vetting process, banning travel from nationals from those six countries for 90 days and refugees for 120 days.
Wilfredo Ruiz with CAIR said this ban is targeting Muslims in particular.
“It’s a Muslim ban,” Ruiz said. “Guess what? The 90 and 120 days have passed of him being president so he is supposed to have what he promised when he implemented this order.”
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality of the travel ban yet, which will happen in October,
“The government will have to show a compelling interest for narrowing or limiting a constitutional right,” Casanova said.
Since this is designed by the government as a temporary ban, the justices said they might not have to rule on it in October, hoping the administration will have found a long-term solution for the issue - which is something people on both sides of the issue can agree upon.
“(If the travel ban is) for three months, I am with,” Alzein said. “But if it is going to be longer and for political reasons then I’m against.”
The government will have to prove in October that those six countries in particular are posing a threat to national security. Critics point out that none of the deadly terrorist attacks carried out in the U.S. have been committed by people from those nations.
In fact, the majority of the attackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, which is not on the travel ban list.