US judge temporarily blocks Trump's travel ban nationwide

February 4, 2017

Seattle, Feb 4: A U.S. judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's ban on travelers and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, siding with two states that urged a nationwide hold on the executive order that has launched legal battles across the country.

judgeU.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ruled that Washington state and Minnesota had standing to challenge Trump's order, which government lawyers disputed, and said they showed their case was likely to succeed.

“The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury,” Robart said.

Trump's order last week sparked protests nationwide and confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer.

It wasn't immediately clear what happens next for people who had waited years to receive visas to come to America. The Department of Homeland Security wouldn't comment, but the State Department had previously ordered visas from the seven countries revoked.

Washington became the first state to sue over the order that temporarily bans travel for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen and suspends the U.S. refugee programme.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the travel ban significantly harms residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the lawsuit two days later.

After the ruling, Mr. Ferguson said people from the affected countries can now apply for entry to the U.S.

“Judge Robart's decision, effective immediately ... puts a halt to President Trump's unconstitutional and unlawful executive order,” Mr. Ferguson said. “The law is a powerful thing it has the ability to hold everybody accountable to it, and that includes the President of the United States.”

Gillian M. Christensen, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the agency doesn't comment on pending litigation. The judge's ruling could be appealed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal attorneys had argued that Congress gave the President authority to make decisions on national security and immigrant entry.

The two states won a temporary restraining order while the court considers the lawsuit, which aims to permanently block Trump's order. Court challenges have been filed nationwide from states and advocacy groups.

In court, Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the focus of the state's legal challenge was the way the President's order targeted Islam.

Mr. Trump has called for a ban on Muslims entering the country, and the travel ban was an effort to make good on that campaign promise, Ms. Purcell told the judge.

“Do you see a distinction between campaign statements and the executive order,” Judge Robart asked. “I think it's a bit of a reach to say the President is anti-Muslim based on what he said in New Hampshire in June.”

Ms. Purcell said there was an “overwhelming amount of evidence” to show that the order was directed at the Muslim religion, which is unconstitutional.

When the judge questioned the federal government's lawyer, Michelle Bennett, he repeatedly questioned the rationale behind the order.

Judge Robart, who was appointed the federal bench by President George W. Bush, asked if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties listed in Mr. Trump's order since 9/11. Bennett said she didn't know.

“The answer is none,” Judge Robart said. “You're here arguing we have to protect from these individuals from these countries, and there's no support for that.”

Ms. Bennett argued that the states can't sue on behalf of citizens and the states have failed to show the order is causing irreparable harm.

Judge Robart disagreed.

“The state has met its burden of demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury,” he said. “I find the TRO is in the public interest.”

Up to 60,000 foreigners from the seven majority-Muslim countries had their visas canceled because of the executive order, the State Department said on Friday.

That figure contradicts a statement from a Justice Department lawyer on the same day during a court hearing in Virginia about the ban. The lawyer in that case said about 100,000 visas had been revoked.

The State Department clarified that the higher figure includes diplomatic and other visas that were actually exempted from the travel ban, as well as expired visas.

Mr. Ferguson, a Democrat, said the order is harming Washington residents, businesses and its education system.

Washington-based businesses Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft support the state's efforts to stop the order. They say it's hurting their operations, too.

Lawyers for Washington state said another hearing was expected in the next few weeks.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 1,2020

Jul 1: Hong Kong police moved swiftly on Wednesday against protesters gearing up for the first rally since the introduction of sweeping security legislation, making their first arrest under it and warning of punishment for pro-independence material.

Beijing on Tuesday unveiled the details of the much-anticipated law after weeks of uncertainty, pushing China's freest city and one of the world's most glittering financial hubs onto a more authoritarian path.

As hundreds of protesters gathered downtown for an annual rally marking the 23rd anniversary of the former British colony's handover to China, riot police used pepper spray to arrest at least two people, while one metro station closed.

Police, who earlier banned the rally, cited the law for the first time in confronting protesters and they also made their first arrest under it - a man holding a flag advocating independence.

"You are displaying flags or banners/chanting slogans/or conducting yourselves with an intent such as secession or subversion, which may constitute offences under the ... national security law," police said in a message displayed on a purple banner.

The law will punish crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces with up to life in prison, heralding a more authoritarian era for the Asian financial hub.

China's parliament adopted it in response to months of pro-democracy protests last year triggered by fears that Beijing was stifling the city's freedoms, guaranteed by a "one country, two systems" formula agreed when it returned to Chinese rule.

Authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong have repeatedly said the legislation is aimed at a few "troublemakers" and will not affect rights and freedoms, nor investor interests.

But critics fear it will crush the freedoms that are seen as key to Hong Kong's success as a financial centre.

"With the release of the full detail of the law, it should be clear to those in any doubt that this is not the Hong Kong they grew up in," said Hasnain Malik, head of equity research, Tellimer in Dubai.

"The difference is that U.S. and China relations are far worse and this could be used as a pretext to impede the role of Hong Kong as a finance hub."

In Beijing, Zhang Xiaoming, executive deputy director of Beijing's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, told reporters suspects arrested by Beijing's new security office in Hong Kong could be tried on the mainland.

He said the mainland's national security office abided by Chinese law and that Hong Kong's legal system could not be expected to implement the laws of the mainland. Article 55 of the law states that Beijing's national security office in Hong Kong could exercise jurisdiction over "complex" or "serious" cases.

Mainland security agencies will also be based in Hong Kong officially for the first time, with powers that go beyond city laws.

"The law is a birthday gift to (Hong Kong) and will show its precious value in the future," Zhang said, adding the law would not be applied retroactively.

On July 1 last year, hundreds of protesters stormed and vandalised the city's legislature to protest against a now-scrapped bill that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China.

Those protests evolved into calls for greater democracy, paralysing parts of the city and paving the way for Beijing's imposition of the law this week.

'INEVITABLE'

Speaking at a flag-raising ceremony to mark the handover anniversary, the city's Beijing-backed leader, Carrie Lam, said the law was the most important development since the city's return to Chinese rule.

"It is also an inevitable and prompt decision to restore stability," Lam said at the same harbour-front venue where 23 years ago the last colonial governor, Chris Patten, a staunch critic of the security law, tearfully handed back Hong Kong to Chinese rule.

Some pro-Beijing officials and political commentators say the law is aimed at sealing Hong Kong's "second return" to the motherland after the first failed to bring residents to heel.

Luo Huining, the head of Beijing's top representative office in Hong Kong, said at the ceremony the law was a "common aspiration" of Hong Kong citizens.

Critics denounced the lack of transparency surrounding the details of the legislation until it was unveiled. It came into force at 11 p.m. (1500 GMT) on Tuesday.

Some pro-democracy activists gave up membership of their groups just before the law came into force, though calling for the campaign for democracy to go on offshore.

"I saw this morning there are celebrations for Hong Kong's handover, but to me it is a funeral, a funeral for 'one country two systems'," said democracy lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 6,2020

New York, Mar 6: A 23-year-old Indian with a student visa in the US has pleaded guilty to sexual enticement of a minor girl, prosecutors have said.

Sachin Aji Bhaskar faces a maximum penalty of life in prison.

He pleaded guilty before Senior US District Judge William M Skretny to sexual enticement of a minor.

The charge carries a minimum penalty of 10 years in prison, a maximum penalty of life in prison, a fine of USD 250,000 or both, US Attorney James P Kennedy said.

Prosecutors alleged that Bhaskar communicated by text and email with an 11-year-old girl for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity.

Through those communications, Bhaskar enticed the victim to engage in a sexual activity with him in August, 2018, they said.

The sentencing in the case is scheduled for June 17.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 4,2020

Kolkata, Feb 4: A Thailand national on Tuesday gave birth during a flight from Doha to Bangkok.

The unnamed woman passenger went into labour and delivered the baby with the help of a cabin crew of Qatar airways at around 3 am.

The aircraft made the emergency landing in Kolkata and the woman was admitted to a private hospital here. Both the mother and the baby are doing fine.

"An unscheduled flight from Doha to Bangkok QR-830 landed around 03:09 am at Kolkata airport in medical priority landing. The pilot of Qatar flight had asked SOS to ATC for medical priority landing. The flight landed safely, the airport team with the doctor was attending the concerned." Kolkata Airport official said while speaking to news agency.

More details in this regard are awaited.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.