Send by email

your name: email to: message:
Username: Email: Password: Confirm Password:
Login with
Confirming registration ...

Edit your profile:

Country: Town: State:
Gender: Birthday:
Email: Web:
How do you describe yourself:
Password: New password: Repite password:

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

US Supreme Court supports Trump's immigration veto

Por Rory

The Supreme Court of the United States granted this Tuesday to Donald Trumpla the greater legal victory of his mandate. The Court - with the five votes of the conservative members in favor and the four of the Liberals against - decided to maintain the president's controversial immigration ban, which prohibits traveling to the country from Muslim countries. Currently, after three versions of this decree have been issued, this policy applies to five Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen - after it withdrew Iraq, included in the first list, after its protest by be an ally of Washington in the Middle East. In April, Chad was also removed from the list after agreeing to cooperate with Washington. The travel ban also affects two non-Muslim countries, North Korea and Venezuela.

The decision of the Tribunal not only gives the Republican his first great triumph before one of his most important initiatives, but also rejects that the president has exceeded his authority and is discriminating against Muslims. In this way, the Supreme Court also recognizes the competence of the Republican to prohibit the entry of travelers from certain Muslim countries if it considers it necessary to protect the country.

Immediately after knowing the decision, Trump was sent to his favorite loudspeaker, Twitter, where he has more than 53 million followers. "The Supreme Court upholds the Trump ban, Wow!" The president wrote in capital letters, speaking of himself in the third person. In a statement released by the White House, the president described the decision of the Supreme Court as "a tremendous victory for the American people and for the Constitution. In this era of global terrorism and extremist movements that seek to harm innocent civilians, we must properly investigate those who come to our country," Trump said. The court held that the challengers had not demonstrated that the prohibition violates the United States immigration law or the First Amendment's prohibition of the country's Constitution that the government favors one religion over another.

The ruling confirmed broad presidential discretion over who can enter the United States. It means that the current ban may remain in force and that Trump could add more countries. Trump argues that the veto is necessary to protect the country from attacks perpetrated by Islamic militants. In the explanation of the decision, written by the president of the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts, it is reasoned that Trump did not violate the law with this decree, whose initial version was signed on January 27, 2017. Then, it caused great chaos in international airports in the absence of coordination with the Department of State and National Security, on which the agents of the Frontier depend. The decree initially banned travelers from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

The guards did not know what to do: whether to follow the order of the president, their commander-in-chief, or allow the travelers of the aforementioned countries to cross the border at the airports, since they had their visas in order processed in the US embassies. Judge John Roberts, who drafted the ruling, said that the immigration veto "is framed" in the powers of the president. "The government has given a sufficient justification based on national security," the judge added, although he stressed that in it the court is not expressing its opinion on the policy itself.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor was responsible for drafting the dissenting text of the Liberals. "A reasonable observer would conclude that this proclamation was motivated by an anti-Muslim spirit," wrote Sonia Sotomayor, who along with the High Court's liberal judges, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, acknowledged having reached the conclusion that " they ignore the facts "and" they look away from the suffering that is caused in countless families and individuals." Meanwhile, the controversy on immigration policy continues due to the separation of families on the border.

The Chief of Border Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, acknowledged that his agency not only failed to bring before the Prosecutor's Office adults who cross illegally with children, but has recovered the politics of the previous president Barack Obama, 'catch and release'. Highly criticized by the Republican president, because in his opinion incites crime and violence, the policy implies the freedom of the undocumented immigrant, due to the traditional problems of space in immigration detention centers, under the "promise", which does not it is usually fulfilled, that the immigrant appears before the immigration judge on the day of they hearing.