What’s wrong with Trump’s Muslim ban?
The backlash to President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries has been swift and intense, and it is not yet clear how the president will be able to avoid an unpopularity with the majority of Americans.
On Wednesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s new immigration ban, but that decision is now set to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The ban, signed on Friday, bans entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, and suspends the U:S.
refugee resettlement program.
While the president’s initial executive order was upheld by the courts, the administration’s appeal of that ruling was filed Monday with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.
“I believe the Ninth Court has already made a decision and the president has a duty to abide by that decision,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“And if he does not, the Court will take a stand and the President is obligated to take that stand.”
In a statement, Sessions also defended the administration: “While we are pleased that the Ninth is considering this case, we have always said that our executive order is consistent with the law and does not constitute a ‘Muslim ban.'”
The administration has said that it is appealing the Ninth’s ruling to the full Supreme Court, but the decision is expected to come down later this month.
Trump’s executive order also suspends U.K. entry for citizens of Iran and Iraq, and bans refugees from Syria indefinitely.
The Supreme Court will have to decide whether the order violates the U.:S.
Refugee Admissions Program, a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows for refugee resettlement.
According to the Refugee Act of 1980, the refugee resettlement process must be voluntary and “consistent with the purposes for which it was established.”
The Trump administration argued in its appeal that the resettlement process was voluntary and that the executive order violates that requirement.
But the U :S.
Court of Refugee Appeals said in its ruling that the Trump executive order did not “promote the goal of an orderly refugee resettlement system,” and that there was no “legitimate interest” to compel resettlement.
“The United States cannot simply take in a large number of refugees to alleviate a shortage in its population,” the court said.
“In the process, it may alienate the refugees from their host countries and may have the unintended consequence of alienating the host countries from which refugees would otherwise be resettled.”
The appeals court also said that while the executive action was “likely to result in an increase in the number of immigrants entering the United State, the burden of proving that there is a real threat to public safety and welfare is so great that it would be difficult to justify the burden.”
The Supreme Supreme Court is expected take up the case in the coming weeks.
Trump has also ordered that any refugees who enter the U .
S. are required to undergo “extreme vetting” before being admitted.
A number of conservative and legal organizations have sued to block the order, and the Supreme of the U is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Tuesday.
The administration says it is also appealing the order to the District Court of Maryland, which is overseeing the case.
“This is a case about the President’s order, not the refugees who have come to this country,” Sessions said.