NY joins lawsuit against updated immigration ban

Washington state’s attorney general is asking a federal judge to affirm that an order blocking President Donald Trump’s first travel ban will also apply to a revised travel ban.

The president’s new order bars new visas for people from the six countries and temporarily shuts down America’s refugee program, affecting would-be visitors and immigrants from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya. It exempts several categories of people from its restrictions, including dual nationals who have USA citizenship, green card holders and people who already hold valid visas. The court has issued notice to the Trump administration to submit its response by March 13.

Three states (original travel-ban petitioner Washington, plus NY and Oregon) are asking Robart to rule that his original suspension applies to the new order as well, at least until Trump’s lawyers answer some pointed questions about it.

Ferguson told a news conference the new order harmed a “smaller group” of individuals but that would not affect the state’s ability to challenge it in court.

A federal judge in Seattle is telling Washington state, “No”.

Trump signed on Monday a new executive order banning refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

Now, Hawaii, along with local imam Ismail Elshikh, has revamped the challenge and brought it against the second order. He could order the Justice Department to respond before deciding.

The new motion proposes a hearing on 15 March, a day before Trump’s revised travel ban goes into full effect.

In response to Washington’s lawsuit, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ordered an emergency halt to the policy last month. Though the administration appealed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the order, it refused handing a victory to Ferguson.

The Washington attorney general said while the new order isn’t as restrictive as the first one, it remains “illegal and unconstitutional”. Most indicate a slight majority of voters opposed, with strong support among Trump’s political base.

The plaintiff has at least some chance of prevailing when a longer-term order is considered later, the judge said. “That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion”, the order states, asserting that it was instead meant to protect all religious minorities.

But lawyers said changes made in the revised ban did nothing to mitigate its discriminatory intent.

“For many in Hawaii, including state officials, the executive order conjures up the memory of the Chinese Exclusion Acts and the imposition of martial law and Japanese internment after the bombing of Pearl Harbour”, the suit filed by Attorney General Douglas Chin asserted.

According to the fact sheet, the Department of Homeland Security will conduct a country-by-country review of the information the six targeted nations provide to the United States for visa and immigration decisions.

The states and immigration advocates argue the new ban, like the original one, discriminates against Muslims.

Hawaii on Wednesday became the first state to sue the administration over its revised travel ban. Green Card holders (legal permanent residents of the US) from the named countries will not be affected.

The pressure from the Iraq officials included a phone call between Trump and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on February 10 and an in-person conversation between Abadi and Vice President Mike Pence in Munich on February 18.

Then, after the new travel ban was issued, the man filed a new complaint on Friday afternoon, arguing that the new order is still an “Muslim ban” that violates his religious freedom, and his rights to due process.