Washington: What is going to happen with Donald Trump Muslim ban? Will the court allow the visa ban imposed on seven Muslim nations by the newly installed President, Donald Trump, or will send it to the dustbin of history? While there is a possibility that anything can happen, there are reasons to believe that an agreement can be reached in this regard.
In the meantime a panel of judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals listened to arguments as to whether President Trump’s travel ban should remain on hold. Since the ban was held by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, thousands of immigrants who had valid visas and were being returned by homeland security, were allowed in.
Trump, who had claimed to fight Islamic terrorism and building of a massive wall on the border with Mexico in the course of campaigning, had signed the order on Jan. 27, which banned refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days.
The countries from where people were blocked for 90 days included Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, and barred immigration from Syria indefinitely. The ban even impacted those people who had valid visa and even with Green Cards.
There have been widespread protests across the US against the discriminatory ban against Muslims. Washington state and Minnesota had filed lawsuit against the ban and won a temporary restraining order from a federal judge in Seattle. The circuit court is all set to conclude as to whether to uphold that ruling. The arguments were heart by three judges during a telephonic court hearing. The three judges included Michelle Friedland, San Francisco-based judge appointed by then-president Barack Obama; William Canby, a Phoenix-based judge appointed by then-president Jimmy Carter; and Richard Clifton, a Honolulu-based judge appointed by then-president George W. Bush.
It is now clear that the visa ban in its present form is certainly not going to happen. Judge Friedland demanded evidence that the nations banned by Trump are actually connected to terrorism. Canby noted that no visa-carrying travelers from the countries were implicated. Clifton asked why current visa procedures, which can take months or years to meet, were insufficient.
The court wondered as to why the ban cannot be viewed as a simply a security issue and not a Muslim ban as it impacted merely 15 percent of Muslim population across the world. Judge Richard Clifton said, “It would be possible to identify these countries as a source of concern and possibly as the subject of special treatment without having religious motivation or discriminatory intent behind it…Those countries are a concern from a terrorist perspective.”