The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme court to allow the travel ban to take full effect, following appeals in California where the court ruled that only parts of it could be enacted.
The White House argued that the new form of the travel ban differs from the two previous “in process and in substance” and these differences show that it “is based on national-security and foreign-affairs objectives, not religious animus.”
The new form of the ban was announced on September 24 and bans the entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad – who have no connections to the United States.
These connections include family relationships with grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of those living in the United States. It also includes formal “documented” connections with a US institution, such as a university.
“We are reviewing the court’s order and the government will begin enforcing the travel proclamation consistent with the partial stay. We believe that the proclamation should be allowed to take effect in its entirety,” said a spokesperson from the justice department.
Critics of Trump’s various bans have referred to the move as a “Muslim ban”. The US president has previously said that he hopes for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
The first was introduced in January, a week after Trump took office. When this was blocked, he issued a revised version that expired in September.
“Trump has repeatedly failed to get his agenda through Congress,” said Becca Heller, who runs the International Refugee Assistance Project.
“Every time he fails on this front, he tries to make it up to his base by going after more immigrants and refugees. What we’re seeing is a battle for the soul of the country, an attempt to redefine what it means to be an American.”