Trump’s Grandma Ban Is No More for Now

A federal judge in Hawaii stepped in on Thursday night to stop the Trump administration from enforcing its irrational interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order that allowed a limited part of the ban on individuals from six Muslim-majority countries to go into effect.

Judge Derrick Watson rejected the government’s effort to prevent grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and other close relatives of people in the United States from entering the country, describing the administration’s cramped view as the “antithesis of common sense.” He also directed the government to honor what has been clear from the day the Supreme Court issued its order: that thousands of refugees already have a bona fide relationship with U.S.-based resettlement organizations. This ruling will make an enormous practical difference for tens of thousands of families.

Two federal appeals courts have found that large portions of the current ban on refugees and nationals of six Muslim countries — “Muslim Ban 2.0” — were illegal. In the case brought by the ACLU and its partners, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the ban “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” On June 26, the Supreme Court granted review of both cases and will hold oral arguments in the fall. We remain confident that the justices will ultimately conclude that any version of the Muslim ban violates our fundamental values.

For now, Judge Watson’s sensible ruling properly tracks the Supreme Court’s strict limitations on the temporary ban before a final ruling is made on its constitutionality. The justices said that it could apply only to those who have “no connection to the United States at all” and could not bar anyone who can “credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

But the Trump administration disregarded the limits imposed by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The court specifically noted that a wife or mother-in-law would “clearly” qualify as a close family member. Yet the administration insisted against all reason that other similarly close relationships — a grandparent or aunt, for example — would not qualify. Judge Watson repudiated the government’s bizarre and arbitrary position, pointing out that “grandparents are the epitome of close family members.”

The government’s position on refugee resettlement agencies was no better. The Supreme Court said that the ban cannot be imposed on anyone who has a bona fide relationship with a U.S. entity. The court also explained that such a relationship is “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading” the ban. Yet the Trump administration arbitrarily said that some relationships with organizations do not count — specifically relationships with organizations that are preparing to resettle a particular individual or family in the United States. Judge Watson also rejected this made-up exception. These agencies have formal and documented relationships with the refugees for whom they rent apartments, arrange medical care, and prepare other services. As Judge Watson explained: “Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.”

The government has decided to appeal Thursday’s ruling and said it will take the issue directly to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the government has apparently taken the first steps toward imposing a possible indefinite ban against people from these or other countries. It is doing a “worldwide review” of which countries do not, in its view, provide sufficient information to screen their nationals for visas and other immigration documents. Under the terms of President Trump’s order, that “review” may end up in a permanent ban against these six, or perhaps other, countries.

For the moment, however, common sense has prevailed — at least for those with grandparents and grandchildren, aunts and nephews, brothers and sisters-in-law subject to the travel ban.

Add a comment (110)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

TARGETING MUSLIM AMERICANS IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL
SECURITY
by Saher Selod, Simmons College
Years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the daily lives of American Muslims
continue to be affected by the anxieties and policies those attacks unleashed. Because so many of
their fellow citizens see them as both physically threatening and culturally inferior, MuslimAmericans
endure regular expressions of hostility at their jobs and in public spaces. They are
also the target of government policies aimed at securing the country from another terrorist attack.
Every single day in U.S. airports, for example, Muslim Americans are treated as dangerous.
Quite a few men have been told they are on a No-Fly List when they attempt to check in for
flights; and women who wear the hijab or other religious clothing are often stopped and searched
by Transportation and Security Administration agents. Such government actions are not only a
problem for the people affected; they also convey the broader message that Muslims are a threat
to national security and require careful monitoring and surveillance.
I interviewed 48 South Asian and Arab Muslim Americans about their experiences pre- and post-
9/11 in Chicago and the Dallas/Ft. Worth area between 2009 and 2012. My research on many
aspects of this issue shows, because of the association of Islam with terror, violence, and the
oppression of women, Muslims in the United States bear a heavy burden. They feel constantly
compelled to prove that their national and religious identities can co-exist harmoniously.
Prejudice against Muslims in America
Social scientists have made several attempts to measure trends in public views about Muslims in
the United States.
• According to the Pew Research Center, Americans’ favorable rating of Islam dropped from
40% in 2001 to 30% in 2001.
• A 2005 survey by the Council of American Islamic Relations found that one fourth of
Americans held anti-Muslim attitudes and believed negative stereotypes about Muslims.
Roughly 25% of respondents thought Islam is a religion that preaches hatred and violence;
60% were not very knowledgeable about Islam (only 2% claimed to be knowledgeable); and
a little over a third of respondents described themselves as indifferent/confused/neutral about
Islam and Muslims.
• A 2010 study by the Public Research Institute reveals that 45% of Americans believe Islam
and American values are incompatible.
Because discrimination against Muslims can be considered a form of racism, it is also interesting
to look at trends in public support for racial profiling since the terrorist attacks of 2001.
According to a Gallup poll, before those attacks only about one-fifth of all Americans supported
racial profiling by law enforcement. However, in a 2004 Gallup poll, 31% of the respondents
agreed that some racial profiling of motorists was justified on roads and highways, while 45%
supported it at security checkpoints at airports. In 2010, a CBS News poll found a slight decrease
in support for profiling (with only 37% of Americans in favor), yet more than a third of
Americans were in favor of the use of racial profiling at airports.
Surveillance Practices in U.S. Airports
Before the attacks on September 11, 2001, security in U.S. airports was contracted out to private
companies. In November 2001, the U.S. Congress created the Transportation and Security
Administration, making this federal agency responsible for airport security. That agency now has
a budget of $7.4 billion and 55,600 full-time employees. In turn, the Transportation Security
Administration established a program called Screening of Passengers through Observing
Techniques, which trains agents to identify passengers who are behaving in what has been
defined as a suspicious manner. The federal government’s Terrorist Screening Center also
assembled and continues to maintain a No-Fly List.
My research shows that these innovations at U.S. airports have led to many American Muslim
men and women being treated with suspicion. The Department of Homeland Security claims the
No-Fly List contains 21,000 names on it. In addition to the No-Fly List, airlines are required to
provide the Transportation and Security Agency with personal information about every
passenger. This Secure Flight List is then compared to the No-Fly List. Short of that, according
to a 2011 report by the Pew Research Center, 52% of Muslims feel they are singled out by the
government’s anti-terrorist initiatives with 21% feeling singled out by airport security.
How Muslim American Men and Women Experience Heightened Surveillance
The majority of the Muslim men I interviewed were made aware that they were on lists calling
for heightened government surveillance only at the airport. When they tried to get their boarding
passes for flights they had booked, they were then interrogated by a Transportation Security
agent. If they were allowed to proceed to their flights, their persons and possessions were
searched at the security line and often once again at the gate. Muslim American women reported
that they were treated unfairly and unequally as they passed through airport security. Women
wearing the hijab could expect to be stopped for special searches at the security gate, although
none of those I interviewed were informed that they were on any government watch list.
Even now, more than thirteen years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, pervasive
surveillance by government and suspicion or outright prejudice from their fellow citizens has the
effect of silencing the Muslim Americans I interviewed. These men and women have come to
understand that, as Muslims, they are likely to be associated with terrorism. They censor
themselves and avoid talking about politics or religion. Even though all citizens in a democracy
have such rights, American Muslims live daily with the worry that they are presumed dangerous
and disloyal, a threat to both national security and American cultural values.
Read more in Saher Selod, “Citizenship Denied: Racialization of Muslim American Men and Women Post-
9/11.” Critical Sociology (2014); and “Criminalization of Muslim American Men in the United States,” in The
Immigrant Other: Lived Experiences in a Transnational World, edited by Rich Furman and Alissa Ackerman
(Columbia University Press, forthcoming).
www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org November 2014

Idiot American

Muslims Bad
Blacks Bad
Jews Bad
Hispanics Bad
Asians Bad
Liberals Bad
Catholics Bad
Homosexuals Bad
Anything I don't understand bad
Oh Red Indians BAD
French Really BAD
Germans SUPER BAD
JAPS OH MAN THEY BAD
LOL

Anonymous

THE U.S. SHOULD PUT ALL THE MUSLIMS IN CAMPS.
THEY SHOULD DEPORT ALL MEXICANS.
THEY SHOULD DEPORT ALL THE ASIANS OR LOCK THEM UP IN CAMPS.
THEY SHOULD INVADE ALL THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES
IRAN, TURKEY, PAKISTAN, IRAQ (AGAIN), ETC.
THEY SHOULD CANCEL THE CEASE FIRE AGAINST NORTH KOREA AND CHINA
THEY SHOULD ATTACK RUSSIA
THEY SHOULD GO TO WAR AGAINST BRAZIL JUST BEFORE THEY START TALKING SHIT

THE WHITE AMERICAN MEN SHOULD GO TO WAR WITH EVERYONE THAT IS NOT WHITE AND PROTESTANT.

INVADE IRELAND WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, DAMN CATHOLICS
INVADE AFRICA AS WELL BECAUSE THEY PLAY BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL BETTER THAN YOU
GO FOR IT

ATTACK AFRICA CAUSE YOU KNOW THEY BLACK
ATTACK MIDDLE CAUSE YOU KNOW THEY RADICAL
ATTACK ASIA CAUSE THEY COMMUNIST AND GOING TO BE SUPER POWER
ATTACK RUSSIA CAUSE THEY YOU KNOW RUSSIAN LOL

YEP, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP THE US SECURE IS BY DESTROYING 6/7 PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.

GO TAKE SOME MENTAL HEALTH PILLS YOU DILDO.

THIS IS WHY SOMETIMES DEMOCRACY DOES NOT WORK.

Eli Samuel Goldman

All the Republican Presidents before Trump encouraged families stay together here in the USA. They encouraged such close knit families because it's a family value. But Trump trys to seperate parents from kids, steal the kids and ban parents who've committed no real crime. He even tries to ban grandparents. It bothers me DEEPLY how much Donald J. Trump shows such utter HATE for wholesome American Family Values, and trys to destroy them.

Eli Samuel Goldman

Trump must feel having a close knit family is only for the rich and white supremicists like him. Though he does everything is his power to destroy the family unit, he constantly brags how close knit his family is....he tried to show what a great father he isn't saying how close is to his kids, even stating they tell him everything, and asking his advice on all things out of closeness and respect. He once bragged that he cares about his kids so much there's nothing they do that he isn't watching over and knows about (espousing he is how a father "should be.")

Eli Samuel Goldman

But wait, if he is as involved in his kids lives and they tell him everything and always get his advice (by Donald J. Trump's own repeated testimony), then Senator Chris Murphy must not right. Trump not only knew about the Russia meetings, but advised, condoned, and ordered them. Donald J. Trump even said of his kids that they don't "make a move without (him)."

Eli Samuel Goldman

Eli Samuel Goldman

Form staunch Trump defenders, the people of the great state of Tennessee are starting to see the negative and devastating effects and reprocussions of the Trump presidency and are pulling away from Trump. In a historically Republican state, Trump is barely more popular than Obama was now, a very unpopular President in Tennessee. The Trump-camp response to the people of Tennessee according to the Tennessean Newspaper, "Trump doesn’t care what people like them think." http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/30/trump/354865001/

Eli Samuel Goldman

The people of Wyoming seem to forget that Donald J. Trump even going to little Wyoming or seeing the people of Wyoming was a waste of money, and when asked to support Wyoming during the election, outraged Donald J. Trump said, "I'm not going to waste money" on supporting the people of Wyoming by visiting them. http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/724258

Eli Samuel Goldman

The piece of shit pig Donald J. Trump is an anti-Semitic prick. Years on the show he has his people doing anything possible to keep me starved and broke, then has them pretend to not know in Jewish with Crohns Disease and lactose intolerant. Then he has them pretend they're doing a kindness by buying me pork products as the only possible way I can eat and stay alive. Also buying me things that will inflame Crohns...essentially giving me no choice but to violate my religion and endanger my health just to stay alive. The original hypothetical discussion was that we could use local restaurant and businesses instead of Kraft Services to promote local businesses and *healthy foods* but Trump used the talk he portrays as a contract instead to force me to starve, or eat junk food unhealthy to me that promotes his business partners instead, and unkosher unhealthy foods and foods that inflame my disability as punishment. He truely is cruel to Jews and the disabled while pretending he cares.

Pages

Sign Up for Breaking News