Photo by Phil Roeder, published under Creative Commons license
Today the U.S. Supreme Court took up Trump’s travel ban and the preliminary injunctions from the 4th and 9th Circuits that have prevented it from going into effect. The Supreme Court’s ruling had three important parts:
Certiorari: The Court granted certiorari – that is, it agreed to hear the Trump administration’s appeal from the rulings in the 4th and 9th Circuits. This case will be heard in the Court’s October 2017 term, so a definitive ruling is months away.
Partial travel ban: The Court ordered that part of the 90-day and 120-day travel bans could be implemented. Citizens from the six targeted, mostly-Muslim countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – and refugees can be temporarily barred from entering the United States unless they have “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” That connection might be family, work, school, previously arranged speaking engagements, etc. This part of the order is temporary – the Court will issue a final order only after hearing the case on the merits, including arguments about religious discrimination and executive power.
Mootness: The Court said that “We fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments.” That would mean the 90-day ban would expire before the Court reconvenes in October. So the Court also told lawyers to consider whether the case will be moot by the time they hear it.
Here are links to the decision itself and to articles about it:
- Trump vs. International Refugee Assistance Project, et al (per curiam, 582 U. S. ____ 2017)
- Supreme Court finds a compromise in reviving Trump’s travel ban (Los Angeles Times, 6/26/17)
- Supreme Court Takes Up Travel Ban Case, and Allows Parts to Go Ahead (New York Times, 6/26/17)
- Justices agree to weigh in on travel ban, allow parts of it to go into effect (SCOTUSBlog, 6/26/17)
- Supreme Court allows limited version of Trump’s travel ban to take effect and will consider case in fall (Washington Post, 6/26/17)
- Supreme Court partially restores Trump travel ban that wouldn’t have kept out anyone behind deadly terrorist attacks (Washington Post, 6/26/17)
- Donald Trump’s travel ban is about to go into effect (Vox, 6/26/17)
And in other news:
Asylum seekers in Canada who fled Trump now in legal limbo (Reuters, 6/26/17)
“Canada’s refugee system was struggling to process thousands of applications even before 3,500 asylum seekers began crossing the U.S. border on foot in January. It lacks the manpower to complete security screenings for claimants and hear cases in a timely manner. Often there are not enough tribunal members to decide cases or interpreters to attend hearings, the IRB said.”
He crossed the border illegally but wasn’t deported – because he brought his child (Washington Post, 6/25/17) They were released with an ankle monitor and instructions to join family members in Cleveland – which used to be routine, but is now an unusual occurrence.
“Miguel says he does not know much about Trump or his policies but had heard that people caught bringing children with them into the United States were allowed to live with their relatives. But now that he and Sandra have made it this far, he knows nothing about what life will be, or how long they will be allowed to stay. A year? Forever? Until they appear in court? Until they meet someone — Border Patrol, police, anyone — who does not like them? Would he be allowed to work? Who would hire someone with an ankle monitor? If he cannot work, how will he feed Sandra? If he cannot stay, will he go to prison, or just be sent back? If he is sent back, can Sandra stay?”
President Trump’s claim that MS-13 gang members are being deported ‘by the thousands’ (Washington Post, 6/26/17) Not exactly – “The U.S. government deported 398 gang members to El Salvador so far this year, compared with 534 in all of 2016…”
There’s no evidence that immigrants hurt any American workers (Vox, 6/25/17)
“When a study by an economist at Harvard University recently found that a famous influx of Cuban immigrants into Miami dramatically reduced the wages of native workers, immigration critics argued that the debate was settled.
“The study, by Harvard’s George Borjas, first circulated as a draft in 2015, and was finally published in 2017….”
There is, however, a problem with his analysis: the Borjas study relied on by anti-immigrant politicians looked at a small sample of 17 workers per year. The Vox article details the various studies of the Mariel boatlift and their statistical methods and findings.
“In short, different well-qualified economists arrive at opposite conclusions about the effects of immigration, looking at the same data about the same incident, with identical modern analytical tools at their disposal. How that happened has a lot to teach about why the economics of immigration remains so controversial.”
Immigration attorneys describe surge in deportations under Trump (Duluth News-Tribune, 6/24/17)
The article from the Duluth Tribune describes “a departure from the last 25 years” in targeting foreign students on J-1 visas. The headline, however, is a little misleading – the attorneys describe increases in arrests and detentions, not yet in actual deportations.
“With the ramping up in enforcement comes a change in who is prioritized for deportation. Bailey said he has clients who are students who recently completed their studies and are being sought for deportation. They were likely found by ICE checking on the J-1 student visa database, he said.
“They are checking the database for students and actively looking for students.”
“That is a departure from the last 25 years, experts say.”
Immigration news 