So how is this any different than the current travel rules. I mean we don’t just let anyone into the US???
You have to have a visa and you have to apply for it. So, this is just the long established policy that the US has been using for the last 5 years…
Agreed. Even so, parties should go back to court and challenge the stated restrictions since Trump is going to look to maximize them (i.e., minimize exceptions to those specifically stated in the SCOTUS ruling), even though the principle and guidelines are clearly broader than just close familiar, student, employment or speaking engagement provided as examples in the SCOTUS ruling.
The ruling first sets forth the standard of a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a US person or entity”, Then the ruling also provides clear examples where that standard is met. The visa applicant has to provide suitable documentation to support their “credible claim” and, presumably, US authorities should be able to independently verify that claim using reliable US sources.
But the ruling also lays out the standard for the restriction, and that is where the “credible claim of a bona fide relationship” is designed to circumvent the standard, such as a US person or entity creating the relationship with the foreign nation specifically to circumvent that standard.
The media, in their typical fashion, gets very literal on everything to dumb it down for the audience, and Trump will seek to take advantage of that uncertainty to insert bogus reasoning of his own. But just as before, the courts can step in and interpret the SCOTUS ruling to protect the interest of US persons or entities with respect to the travel plans of these foreign nationals. To the extent the new Trump restrictions infringe on those rights (that is, the rights of US persons or entities to receive foreign visitors), the lower courts can make those calls. And those courts have already shown willingness to broadly restrict Trump.
Further, if Trump doesn’t like it, he can go back to SCOTUS for an emergency clarification, but I doubt he’ll get it over the summer SCOTUS recess. Why would SCOTUS give him more leeway on restrictions to keep a handful of tourists from Yemen (tourist with money, I assume) from visiting Disney World or former neighbors and friends who moved to the US? As long as the relationship is documented, bona fide, and not created simply to avoid the restrictions, the restriction should not apply. That’s how I’d expect the lower courts and SCOTUS to rule.
Since the whole purpose of the travel ban was, ostensibly, to give the proper agencies time to go over their procedures to improve security and the time that was needed (90 days) is FAR past, why are we doing this again? I mean other than the religious and racist dick-stroking?
Wat. Have we been flat rejecting any visa applicant who did not have a one-generation blood or marriage relative in the US, and only for those from a few specific countries? And rejecting green card lottery winners under the same restrictions - banning them for 90 days if they fail the bona-fide relationship tests? And refugees?
It surprises me that these rules are no different from the ones we’ve been using for the last 5 years, but you seem pretty confident and I haven’t done the research. I guess this whole thing was much ado about nothing then. No change at all for people coming from those countries.