Politics 

Supreme Court validates Trump’s highly controversial migration decree

WASHINGTON | The US Supreme Court validated Donald Trump’s anti-immigration decree on Tuesday, offering a definite victory for the US president after a bitter court battle over this extremely controversial measure.

The decision, made by a majority of five conservative judges against the four other progressives, ratifies this decree, which permanently forbids US territory for nationals of six countries, most of them with a Muslim majority.

” Wow! Mr. Trump quickly responded in a pithy tweet.

The high court, in its judgment written by the president of the institution John Roberts, believes that the president has only legitimate use of its prerogatives in immigration.

“The state has put forward sufficient justification in terms of national security,” Judge Roberts wrote.

The text in question is the third version of a decree that caused a global shock wave by being abruptly enforced by the White House on January 27, 2017, a week after Trump took office.

This latest version closes the US borders to about 150 million people, nationals of the following countries: Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia and North Korea.

Opponents of the text denounced an “anti-Muslim decree”, a thesis strongly opposed by the government.

“Foreign terrorists” 

During the solemn hearing on the text in April, the four progressive Supreme Court justices had expressed concern over accusations that the decree targeted Muslims, while the US Constitution prohibits religious discrimination.

“A reasonable observer would conclude that the decree was motivated by an anti-Muslim bias,” wrote the magistrate Sonia Sotomayor, in an argument of disagreement attached to the judgment.

This case was probably for the most important Supreme Court of the year.

Donald Trump has been supportive since his arrival at the White House that he is free to restrict access to the United States if he deems it necessary, in the name of national security.

He insists that the decree aims to prevent the entry of “foreign terrorists” into America.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the most serious attacks in the United States have been committed either by Americans or by people not coming from countries covered by the decree.

Anti-Muslim prejudice?

The American Union for Civil Liberties (ACLU), at the forefront of the fight against the text, had tried to prove the existence of anti-Muslim prejudices sustainable Mr. Trump, recalling his promise of presidential campaign to prohibit entry from the United States to Muslims. A statement that provoked a global stir.

Trump had retweeted in November Islamophobic videos of a leader of a British neo-fascist party.

The different versions of the anti-immigration decree have each been the subject of an epic battle in American courts, with multiple twists in the first instance and on appeal.

The third has not escaped the rule: the text signed on September 24 was suspended on October 17 by a judge from Hawaii. A Maryland court also blocked the measure.

Dozens of migrant associations or religious organizations have taken a stand in this debate.

Related posts