Header

 

Justice vs. Trump: How far will the president go in his anti-immigrant policies?

Justice vs. Trump: How far will the president advance in his anti-immigrant policies?

The bricks for the construction of a division policy in the United States are already in place. US President Donald Trump, who campaigned for nationalism and the blockade of freedoms for foreigners arriving in the country, has prompted a new executive order on immigration.

However, there are already five states that have defied the most recent prohibition, signed on March 6, and replaced the one issued on January 27, which contained harsh excluding measures.

The White House said the order seeks to gain time for federal agencies to organize a "stricter system" that allegedly protects the United States from terrorist threats. This system, experts say, could include building the border wall, detaining undocumented immigrants and ending the so-called "sanctuary cities."

But it seems that Trump will not have it easy when facing the judicial system.

"No one is above the law, not even the president"

“We must keep "evil" out of our country,” Trump wrote in February just before the verdict was heard by West District Judge James Robart, who immediately suspended the order nationwide, when considering that it could cause "irreparable injury".

Robart and State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the veto was unconstitutional and that the president is not above the law.

The government never explained why Trump's ban pointed to an urgent national security threat. So, the White House decided not to appeal, and responded soon with a new document that already has detractors.

Hawaii was the first state to file a lawsuit against the new executive order. The State Attorney General said the new version is fundamentally the same as the first and called it "Muslim Ban 2.0." New York, Washington, Oregon and Massachusetts joined.

The New York prosecutor dismissed the new executive order as a "a Muslim ban by another name," while the Washington judge said it used "the same illegal motivations as the original."

Although the measure goes into effect on March 16, the rejection by some states opens the debate on its constitutionality in court, and the document could have an end similar to the previous one.

At this point, the new Trump´s government motion could have a very short-term result and "could be voted on in a few days," Sam Erman, a law professor at the University of Southern California (USC), told the BBC.

Changes in the prohibition

Trump's new ban stipulates that the US will not give 90-day visas to citizens from Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Iran, with a Muslim majority. Iraq, included in the first text, has been left out.

It also bans all refugee admissions for 120 days and excludes the controversial language of the former on prioritizing religious minorities. In the first document, in the case of the Syrian refugees, this suspension was indefinite.

Unlike the previous one, it does not affect those who already have permanent residence permits or green cards, nor those whose permissions were temporarily blocked in the order issued in February.

Recommended for You