Muslim Ban

Muslim Ban
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About immigration ban of Muslims in countries
A Muslim immigration ban is a ban, either absolute or from specific nations, on the immigration of Muslims to a specific nation.

On December 7, 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." [1] [2] His comments were condemned by several of his competitors for the Republican nomination, including Chris Christie , Jeb Bush , Marco Rubio , and Lindsey Graham , as well as by several Republican state party chairmen, civil rights activist Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley . [1] [2]

A 2016 poll found that half of all Australians wanted to ban Muslim immigration, with 49% of Australians supporting a ban. [9] [10] [11] In a 2017 poll of 2,000 people, 48% backed a ban, 27% were undecided, and a quarter opposed it. [12]

In 2017, Senator and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson after the London terror attack called for a Muslim immigration ban, saying "do not pray for London, pray for Muslim ban". This came one year after her maiden speech called for the same Ban. [13] [14] [15] [16]

In 2018, Senator Fraser Anning during his maiden speech called for a plebiscite to reintroduce the White Australia Policy , especially with regard to excluding Muslims. [17] [18] [19]

Before he became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh in 2017, minister Yogi Adityanath praised former U.S. President Trump’s position on a Muslim immigration ban and stated that “similar action[s] [are] needed to contain terror activities in this country.” [20] [21] [22]

Geert Wilders is a prominent advocate for a ban on immigration from Muslim nations in the Netherlands. [23] [24] [25] [26]

Long time Russian leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia , Vladimir Zhirinovsky has called for a ban on Muslim immigration. [27]

Issues DACA Health Care Economic Support Immigration Enforcement Workers’ Rights Immigration Reform and Executive Actions Education Driver’s Licenses Taxes About Us What We Do Legal Disclaimer Staff Board of Directors Our Supporters Annual Reports & Financials Charitable Solicitation Disclosure Contact Us Get Involved Ways to Give Donate Monthly One Time Gift E-Check Gifts in Honor Gifts in Memory Donor Advised Funds Employee Matching Gifts Gifts of Stock Planned Giving Cy-Près Awards Donate Crypto Currency Take Action Trainings Events Work at NILC Fellowships Internships Community Education Resources Links & Legal Help Directories News News Releases Press Inquiries Special Reports Videos Blog – The Torch ⇒ Navigate – DACA – Health Care – Economic Support – Immigration Enforcement – Workers’ Rights – Immigration Reform and Executive Actions – Education – Driver’s Licenses – Taxes – What We Do – Legal Disclaimer – Staff – Board of Directors – Our Supporters – Annual Reports & Financials – – Charitable Solicitation Disclosure – Contact Us – Ways to Give – – Donate Monthly – – One Time Gift – – E-Check – – Gifts in Honor – – Gifts in Memory – – Donor Advised Funds – – Employee Matching Gifts – – Gifts of Stock – – Planned Giving – – Cy-Près Awards – – Donate Crypto Currency – Take Action – Trainings – Events – Work at NILC – – Fellowships – – Internships – Community Education Resources – Links & Legal Help Directories – News Releases – Press Inquiries – Special Reports – Videos – Blog – The Torch
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalit ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
The Muslim bans are a series of discriminatory executive orders and proclamations issued by the Trump administration. President Trump signed the first version, Muslim Ban 1.0, on Jan. 27, 2017, and it became effective that day. Within a day, thousands of concerned people across the U.S. rushed to airports in protest. Significant portions of the ban, as well as later versions of it, were immediately blocked by federal courts, which found each iteration to be blatantly anti-Muslim, unconstitutional, and an abuse of the president’s power. While significant sectors of the American public agree, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion issued on June 26, 2018, unfortunately allowed the third iteration of the ban to remain in place permanently, pending further legal challenges. Because of the devastating impact of this decision, which is separating American families and endangering vulnerable populations, we continue to fight the Muslim bans in our courtrooms, Congress, and on the streets.
Despite intense opposition and criticism from the public, lawmakers, and our federal courts, the Trump administration has also pushed forward other discriminatory policies that share the same goal as the Muslim bans and target Muslims and immigrant communities of color.
Extreme Vetting (or the Backdoor Muslim Ban). On March 15, 2017, the U.S. secretary of State called for enhanced screening of nationals of the six countries included in Muslim Ban 2.0. On May 23, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget approved discretionary use of “extreme vetting” questions, including inquiries into social media accounts and extensive biographical and travel information from the last 15 years. Impacts of the policy include a dramatic decline in visa applications, further delays in visa issuance to nationals of Muslim-majority countries targeted by the Muslim bans, and discriminatory practices while issuing visas.
Ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Sudan and Limiting It for Syrians, Yemenis, and Somalis. On September 19, 2017, a few days before Sudan was removed from the list of banned countries under Muslim Ban 3.0, the Trump administration announced an end to TPS for Sudan, effective November 2, 2018. Sudanese TPS- holders may be forced to return to a country that is still unstable. Since that announcement, TPS was extended for Syrians (on January 31, 2018), Yemenis (on July 5, 2018), and Somalis (on July 19, 2018), but only for those who had already applied for TPS, denying protection to anyone from those countries who arrived more recently, despite the fact that they fled the same dangerous conditions. On October 4, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction stopping the government from terminating TPS for immigrants from Sudan as well as those from El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua.
Slashing Annual Refugee Admissions. On September 27, 2017, the Trump administration drastically lowered the annual refugee admission cap from 110,000 to 45,000, the lowest cap since 1980. In FY 2018, only 22,491 refugees were admitted into the U.S., reflecting how the Trump administration views the annual cap as a ceiling rather than as a target goal to meet and effectively reducing the admission of refugees to a mere trickle. The administration has lowered the annual cap even further in FY 2019, to 30,000 refugees.
Banning Asylum-Seekers at the Southern U.S. Border. On November 9, 2018, President Trump issued a new ban targeting asylum-seekers at the southern U.S. border, basing the new ban on the same provision of the immigration statute that he used as the legal authority for the Muslim bans. While the ban targeting asylum-seekers does not target Muslim communities in the same direct way that Trump’s prior bans based on this provision of the statute did, it was the first ban issued after the Supreme Court’s decision to allow a permanent Muslim ban to remain in effect. However, unlike the Muslim bans, the asylum-seekers ban does not include any provision allowing for waivers of, or exceptions to, the ban. While the Muslim ban’s waiver scheme is widely viewed as a sham process, the asylum-seekers ban illustrates how the Supreme Court’s decision on the Muslim ban emboldened the Trump administration to pursue increasingly harsh and legally questionable policies.
To download this fact sheet as a PDF, which also includes a table that provides more detailed information, click on the PDF icon, above.
The information provided in this document is a basic summary only and does not constitute legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. For legal advice, please contact an attorney. For more information regarding the Muslim bans, please contact Subha Varadarajan, Muslim Ban Legal and Outreach Fellow, at varadarajan@nilc.org . No Muslim Ban Ever is a project of Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, CAIR San Francisco Bay Area, MPower Change, and the National Immigration Law Center. (Prior to the Sep. 11, 2018, edition of this fact sheet, it was titled “Understanding the Muslim Bans.”)

Muslim Advocates

Menu

Close

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

Email

Tweet

Retweet

Favorite

Download

Search

Arrow

Arrow

Arrow

Link

Share Arrow

Download

Play

Video

Court Case

Report

Policy Letter

Amicus Brief

FOIA Request

Testimony & Comment

Toolkit

We’re leading the legal resistance against the Muslim Ban—working in courtrooms, communities, and the media to stop the bigoted policy in its tracks.
Muslim Advocates is leading the legal resistance to the Muslim Ban and is working in courtrooms, communities, and the media to stop it in its tracks. The Muslim Ban is bigger than just one executive order, it’s a broad assault on the ability of Muslims to travel, seek visas, and see their loved ones free from discrimination.

Court Ruling Mandates New Process for Victims to Have Visa Applications Reconsidered Washington, DC — On Monday, a federal judge ruled against the federal government …
Congress has the power to end the Muslim Ban by passing the NO BAN Act.
If America stands for religious freedom for all, then Congress must act now.

Muslim Advocates
P.O. Box 34440
Washington, DC 20043

President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that banned foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the country for 90 days, suspended entry to the country of all Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibited any other refugees from coming into the country for 120 days.
As the Muslim ban went into effect on Saturday, lawyers from the ACLU-WA and the NW Immigrant Rights Project rushed to SeaTac Airport to help immigrants on incoming flights who were being denied entry to the U.S. The ACLU and NWIRP obtained a court order staying the deportation of two incoming travelers at SeaTac. With support from elected officials and more1,000 protesters, they secured the release of two people in the custody of Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Department of Justice appealed Robart’s temporary restraining order of Muslim ban.
ACLU sued Trump on behalf of organizations that resettle refugees , charging his Muslim ban violates First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law.
4 th Circuit of Appeals, in a 10-3 ruling , upholds the lower court ruling in the MD case that stayed the Muslim ban nationwide.

Outcome of the case in the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals is still pending.

The U.S. Supreme Court in late June agreed to hear a challenge to the Muslim travel ban and is allowing the government to move forward with a narrowed portion of the ban. The Court’s ruling forbids the government from applying either the 90-day ban on nationals of six countries or the 120-day ban on refugees to any individual who can credibly claim a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the U.S. The ACLU is very concerned that the Trump administration appears to be using an arbitrary limited definition of these relationships that will cruelly and needlessly keep family members apart.
The Supreme Court left in place a lower-court order exempting grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States from the Muslim ban. However, it also issued an order that allows refugees with formal assurances from resettlement organizations to be banned unless they have other ties to people or entities in the United States, pending further proceedings.

In the fall, the Supreme Court will hear arguments by the ACLU and partner organizations challenging the Trump’s Muslim ban.

President Trump signed the third version of his Muslim ban. Like the previous versions, the new ban blocks travel to the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries and now also includes North Koreans and certain Venezuelan government officials.

These additions do not change the fact that this third version remains a Muslim ban. North Korea accounted for just 61 affected visas last year — out of more than 75 million visitors to the United States. And Venezuela as a country is not banned in any meaningful sense. Only certain Venezuelan government officials and their families are affected, and those individuals are only barred from obtaining tourist and temporary business visas. In contrast, nearly every single person from the Muslim-majority countries is barred from getting a green card, no matter what family, business, or other U.S. connections he or she has.

Trump’s third Muslim ban came about two weeks before the case involving the second version of the ban was to be argued before the Supreme Court. This action led the Court to cancel oral arguments on the earlier version so that the parties could address whether the new order renders the Trump administration’s appeal moot.

The ACLU filed a letter to the Supreme Court saying the case isn’t moot and asking the court to re-set oral arguments in it.
The American Civil Liberties Union and partner organizations were in federal court in Maryland seeking to halt the ban.
A federal court temporarily blocked President Trump’s newest Muslim ban in a ruling in a case brought by the state of Hawaii.
The ACLU of Washington filed a motion in federal court seeking a Preliminary Injunction on behalf of Plaintiff Joseph Doe, a refugee living in Washington state who wants to be reunited with his wife and children, and all others in Washington in similar situations. It challenges the administration’s latest Muslim Travel Ban restrictions, which will indefinitely prevent children and spouses from being allowed to join refugees already admitted to the U.S.
The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily allow the latest Muslim ban to take full effect as the case is litigated. Two federal appeals courts will soon hear separate challenges to the ban. The Ninth Circuit will hear Hawaii’s case on Dec. 6, and the Fourth Circuit will hear the challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and partner organizations on Dec. 8.
Ninth Circuit upholds block on Muslim ban, but Supreme Court lets ban go into effect while it reviews
The Ninth Circuit upholds lower court's ruling blocking Muslim Ban 3.0. However, due to the Supreme Court's order on Dec. 4, the ban remains in effect while the cases are being litigated before the Supreme Court.

This means the Muslim Ban 3.0 and the refugee ban are still in full effect.
A federal District Court granted an injunction to stop the Trump Administration from separating refugees and their families.

“I am very happy that the judge recognized my right to have my family join me here in the United States, and I hope that they can come here as soon as possible,” said plaintiff Joseph Doe.
The judge’s order in the case Doe v. Trump enjoins the Trump Administration from enforcing a policy which would indefinitely prevent children and spouses of refugees from any country from being reunited with their refugee family members already admitted to the U.S.
Court rejects Government’s request to stay injunction against Trump’s refugee ban
The U.S. District Court in Seattle today denied a government motion to stay a nationwide preliminary injunction the Court issued on Dec. 24, 2017, against a Trump Administration policy that indefinitely barred certain refugees and family members of refugees from entering the U.S.

The action came in the case Doe v. Trump , which the ACLU filed on February 7, 2017.
Joseph Doe and his family reunited after court rejects Trump’s refugee ban
Refugee Joseph Doe, plaintiff in, Doe v. Trump , an ACLU-WA suit challenging the Trump administration’s Muslim Ban, was finally able to hug his wife and three children Jan. 18, ending four years of painful separation. The family was reunited at SeaTac airport after a federal court in December granted a nationwide injunction against a ban that would have indefinitely prevented children and spouses from any country from joining refugees like Doe, who have already been admitted to the U.S.

“I am overjoyed to see my wife and children and to be together as a family again,” said Doe. “I am so grateful that the judge recognized my right to have my family join me here in the United States.”
The U.S. Supreme Court announces that it will hear challenges to Muslim Ban 3.0. Oral arguments are scheduled for Spring 2018.
Second Circuit Court upholds block on Muslim Ban
The Fourth Circuit upholds lower court’s ruling blocking Muslim Ban 3.0. However, due to the Supreme Court's order on Dec. 4, the ban remains in full effect as the Supreme Court considers the challenges.
Court rejects government’s attempt to get ACLU-WA case thrown out
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Administration’s attempt to get rid of Doe v. Trump , and remanded it to U.S. District Court to decide whether the case is moot.
The Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s Muslim Ban 3.0
In December, the Supreme Court allowed the third and latest version of the ban to go into effect until the legal challenges to it are fully decided. Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a challenge to the ban, Hawaii v. Trump .

The ACLU has been counsel in successful challenges to all three versions of the ban, including one now pending before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upholds Trump's Muslim Ban 3.0
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s third Muslim ban. As disappointing as this decision is, it does not affect the ACLU of Washington’s case against the Trump Administration’s refugee ban, Doe et al. v. Trump .

This is because plaintiffs in Doe et al. v. Trump have an entirely separate legal claim to have their families reunited with them in the U.S. and those claims were not part of the challenge to the Muslim ban.

Of the Supreme Court’s decision on Muslim ban 3.0, Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for t
Young Nymphomaniac Cum Doll German Goo Girls
Seks Film Mom
Public Porn 2022

Muslim Ban

Report Page