[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court confirmed Tuesday President Trump's ban on traveling to Muslim-majority countries, vigorously confirming Trump's power to control the flow of immigration to America to a country. moment of political upheaval in the treatment of migrants in Mexico. border.
In a vote of 5 to 4, conservatives of the court said the president's statutory authority over immigration was not undermined by his inflammatory statements about the dangers that Muslims pose to Americans.
Mr. Trump, who has fought court challenges to the travel ban since the early days of his administration, hailed the decision to maintain his third version of a decree as a "tremendous victory" and promised to continue to use his office to defend the country. against terrorism and extremism.
"This decision is also a moment of deep justification after months of hysterical media comment and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country," the president said in a statement. decision.
Trump has been back in weeks of controversy over his decision to impose a "zero tolerance" on the southern border of the United States, leading to politically heartbreaking images of children separated from their parents while families were crossing the United States without proper documentation. .
Mr. Trump and his advisers have long argued that presidents have received broad authority to reshape the way America controls its borders. The president's attempts to do this started with the ban on traveling and continues today with his demand for an end to the "capture and liberation" of illegal immigrants.
"We want strong borders and we do not want any crime," Trump said on Monday. "Solid borders, we do not want any crime."
Expressing on behalf of the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stated that Mr. Trump had ample legal authority to make judgments about national security in the field of immigration. And he rejected a constitutional challenge to Mr. Trump's last executive order on the issue, his third, which was issued as a proclamation in September.
But the Liberals of the court decried the decision. In a passionate and burning dissent of the judiciary, Judge Sonia Sotomayor said that the decision was not any better than Korematsu c. United States, the 1944 decision that approved the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
By confirming the ban on travel, she added, the court "merely substitutes one seriously wrong decision for another".
Critics of the president's travel ban have also decried the court's decision. Sen. Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, wrote that "today is a sad day for American institutions and for all religious minorities who have already sought refuge in a land promising freedom."
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom said in a statement that "we are deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's refusal to repudiate the politics rooted in animosity against Muslims".
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that Mr. Trump made numerous statements about his desire to impose a "Muslim ban."
"The question before us is not to know whether to report the statements," writes the Chief Justice. "It is rather the significance of these statements in the review of a presidential directive, neutral at first glance, addressing an issue at the heart of executive accountability."
"By doing that," he wrote. "We must consider not only the statements of a particular president, but also the authority of the presidency itself."
He concluded that the proclamation, viewed in isolation, was neutral and justified by national security concerns. "The proclamation is expressly based on legitimate objectives: to prevent the entry of nationals who can not be adequately controlled and to encourage other nations to improve their practices," he wrote.
Even though it has maintained the travel ban, the majority has taken an important step. He canceled Korematsu c. United States, the 1944 decision that approved the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
But Chief Justice Roberts said Tuesday's decision was very different.
"The forced resettlement of US citizens into concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively illegal and out of the reach of presidential authority," he writes. "But it is wholly inappropriate to compare this morally repugnant order with a visually neutral policy that denies certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission."
"The suspension of entry is an executive act and could have been taken by any other president – the only question is to evaluate the actions of that president by promulgating a proclamation by otherwise valid, "wrote Judge Roberts.
Judges Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined the majority opinion.
Judge Sotomayor blasted Mr. Trump, citing anti-Muslim statements he made as a candidate and, later, as president. She noted that he called for a "total and complete ban" of Muslims entering the United States and tweeted that "we need a travel ban for some dangerous countries".
"Let the seriousness of these statements sink in," said Judge Sotomayor. "Most of these words were uttered or written by the current president of the United States."
She rejected the majority's argument that the government has argued that the travel ban is necessary for national security, saying that no matter how much the government has tried to "whiten" the president's statements, "All the evidence goes in one direction".
Judge Sotomayor has accused his colleagues in the majority of "unconditional acceptance" of the president's allegations of national security. Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Sotomayor dissenting.
In a second, more moderate, Judge Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Judge Elena Kagan, asked if we could trust the administration to apply what he called "the system". elaborated exemptions and exemptions from the proclamation ".
In a contest, Judge Anthony M. Kennedy emphasized the need for religious tolerance.
"The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and promises the free exercise of religion," he writes. "There is an urgent need for officials to adhere to these guarantees and constitutional mandates in all their actions, even in the field of foreign affairs.An anxious world must know that our government remains committed to the freedoms that the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends and lasts. "
The court's decision, an important statement on presidential power, marked the conclusion of a long dispute over Mr. Trump's authority to fulfill his campaign promises to secure the nation's borders.
Just a week after taking office, Mr. Trump published its first ban on traveling, causing chaos in the country's airports and causing a cascade of lawsuits and appeals. The first hurried ban was quickly blocked by the country's courts.
A second version, published two months later, did not get much better, although the Supreme Court authorized that part of it comes into force last June. agreed to hear the appeals of the Trump administration against the court decisions blocking him. But the Supreme Court dismissed these appeals in October after the expiry of the second ban.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Mr. Trump's third and largest ban on entry, issued in the form of a presidential proclamation in September. It initially limited the travel of eight nations, six of which were predominantly Muslim – Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Venezuela and North Korea. Chad was later removed from the list.
The restrictions vary in their details, but, for the most part, citizens of the countries have been banned from emigrating to the United States and many of them are prohibited from working, studying or vacationing right here. In December, the Supreme Court allowed the ban to come into force as court challenges progressed.
Hawaii, several individuals and a Muslim group have challenged the limits of the last travel ban of predominantly Muslim countries; they did not oppose the portions concerning North Korea and Venezuela. They said the last ban, like the previous ones, was tainted with religious animosity and was not adequately justified by national security concerns.
The challengers took him to a federal district court and to a panel of three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit, in San Francisco.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Trump had exceeded the powers conferred on him by Congress in immigration matters and had violated part of the immigration laws prohibiting discrimination in the issuance of visas. In a separate decision that was not directly before the judges, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Virginia, blocked the ban for a different reason, saying that she violated the prohibition of religious discrimination.
Source link
