This website is where we cover news of all types. The news we cover is political, bitcoin news, latest news, blog, blogger, news today, news headlines, crypto, gaming news, cryptocurrency news, North Korea news,

Powered by Blogger.

Judge Halts NEW Travel Ban

Donald Trump

Just a few hours before the new travel ban that Donald Trump wants to put into place was to take effect it was suddenly and abruptly halted. Halted by who you might ask, a Hawaiian judge.

The judge did this after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality rather than true and real concerns.

This is also at a time where rulings are happening all over the country because many people feel as if the ban is not right and should not be happening at all to begin with. Opponents of the ban are renewing their legal challenges. It is also said that judges in at least three different states have been asked to attempt to block the new ban.

An argument of the ban is that it is banning entry into the nation for people who are from predominantly Muslims nations. The ban covers at least six nations that fall under this status.

U.S District Court Judge Derick Watson's decision in Hawaii has currently stopped the ban from continuing from going on for the time being. While other states try to do the same thing in at least 10-12 other states. Hawaii has basically requested a temporary restraining order on the travel ban since they believe that the arguments that are pro-travel ban are not sufficient.

Watson said "Questionable evidence supporting the governments national security motivation" as one reason to put the ban on hold.

The judge to represent Hawaii issued a 43-page ruling after hearing arguments on Hawaii's request.


In other sates such as Maryland, it is said that the ban is a discriminatory ban. It is said that the measure still discriminates against Muslims and of course Muslims who would like to travel to the United States.

Government attorneys made the argument that the ban was reviewed for legal reasons, including the removal of an exemption for religious minorities who want to go ahead and come to the U.S.

 "It doesn't say anything about religion. It doesn't draw any religious distinctions" said Jeffery Wall who was arguing for the Justice Department.

Protesters of a travel ban

However ACLU attorneys said that what President Trump has said on the campaign and what some of the members of the government have said make it clear that the point of the ban is for Muslims.

The new version of the ban covers a national security idea rather than a overall travel ban. It is also being openly said that the ban was also revised so it does not the due-process rights of travelers and that it eliminates some concerns about all of that by narrowing the reason for the ban down to a specific reason for it.

It is worth mentioning that the ban does not cover people who already have Visas for the United States.

First Amendment

James Robart

 While it must be mentioned that Maryland is also arguing that it is against the law for the Trump Administration to reduce the total amount of refugees allowed into the U.S from the amount of 110,000 to 50,000 people.

It also argued that if the ban would take effect it would leave 60,000 people in war torn countries where they could likely get killed.

The overall argument of the First Amendment is that whether the ban violates federal immigration laws and would immigrants be "irreparably harmed" if the widely debated travel ban would go into affect. said James Robart.

He did spend a good portion of Wednesday afternoon's hearing talking to the lawyers about the travel ban that is supposed to go into affect. He spoke about two conflicting immigration laws one of which give s the president the authority to keep "any class of aliens" out of the country. Now the other law forbids the government to discriminate on the basis of nationality when it comes to issuing immigrant Visas.

Robart said that he would issue a order that is written however he did not say as to when this will be happening.

Another state alongside Hawaii says that the order violates the First Amendment, which bars the government from playing favorites with religion. They say the new ban has no difference then the old ban.

The states claim is still not resolved.

The 9th U.S Court Of Appeals did rule on the discrimination claim but also refused to reinstate the original ban.

No comments