LIVE STREAMING
Protesters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC, U.S., April 25, 2018, while the court justices consider case regarding presidential powers as it weighs the legality of President Donald Trump's latest travel ban targeting people from Muslim-majority countries. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Protesters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC, U.S., April 25, 2018, while the court justices consider case regarding presidential powers as it weighs the legality of President Donald Trump's latest travel ban targeting people from…

Supreme Court upholds travel ban, takes Trump's side

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the president has the authority to prohibit the entry of travelers from some Muslim majority countries, Venezuela, and…

MORE IN THIS SECTION

SHARE THIS CONTENT:

This is what happens when Republicans nominate judges to the Supreme Court.

In a vote of 5 to 4, the U.S. Supreme Court has finally decided to approve the immigration ban promoted by the Trump administration since its first days in office.

In the middle of a serious migratory crisis at the border and of arduous international criticism against government measures considered "humanitarian crimes,” the Supreme Court has now decided to grant the president the authority to block the entrance to the country of people coming from several countries of Muslim majority, Venezuela, and North Korea.

In the beginning, the so-called travel ban included Iran, Iraq, Libya, Chad, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea and Venezuela but after two revisions, the final decision removed Iraq and Chad while maintaining some restrictions for Venezuela and North Korea. However, the Supreme Court allowed the general measures to stand while a final decision was reached.

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the judicial opinion and the majority of votes in favor were from the most conservative bench in the court, the Washington Post explained.

From the beginning, minor courts had suspended decisions regarding this policy for alleged religious bias, to which Roberts replied that it would be merely a matter of decisions within the presidential scope and that religion "had nothing to do with it".

"The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," he wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

The human rights organization Amnesty International issued a statement criticizing the decision of the Supreme Court, which it describes as "hatred policy” that “has no place in a country that claims to value human rights."

"Some of the people banned from this policy are fleeing conflicts that the United States has had a direct hand in creating or perpetuating, as is the case in Yemen and Syria," the organization said. "In those cases especially we are essentially lighting a house on fire and locking the escape door shut."

During September, President Trump fired back against the blockades of his ban, suggesting that "The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific, but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!” he wrote on Twitter.

In the midst of a pitched battle against immigration, this decision of the Supreme Court could pave the way for the government to implement similar measures against nationals from other countries such as Latin America.

  • LEAVE A COMMENT:

  • Join the discussion! Leave a comment.

  • or
  • REGISTER
  • to comment.
  • LEAVE A COMMENT:

  • Join the discussion! Leave a comment.

  • or
  • REGISTER
  • to comment.
00:00 / 00:00
Ads destiny link