Judge partially lifts Trump administration ban on refugees

[alp227]

Source: AP

SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge in Seattle on Saturday partially lifted a Trump administration ban on certain refugees after two groups argued that the policy prevented people from some mostly Muslim countries from reuniting with family living legally in the United States.

U.S. District Judge James Robart heard arguments Thursday in lawsuits from the American Civil Liberties Union and Jewish Family Service, which say the ban causes irreparable harm and puts some people at risk. Government lawyers argued that the ban is needed to protect national security.

Robart ordered the federal government to process certain refugee applications. He said his order applies to people “with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity within the United States.”

Read more: https://apnews.com/a2634c0ce7d545ee8427e5c2d380a3e7/Judge-partially-lifts-Trump-administration-ban-on-refugees

---

Robart, James L.

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Nominated by George W. Bush on December 9, 2003, to a seat vacated by Thomas S. Zilly. Confirmed by the Senate on June 17, 2004, and received commission on June 21, 2004. Assumed senior status on June 28, 2016.

[uppityperson]

1. Here's what I don't get. This was supposed to be temporary last yr while the

current vetting was examined and changed as deemed appropriate. It's nearly a yr later. Why haven't they examined it and recommended changes already?

I know, it's a rhetorical question because they lie.

[Igel]

2. It's complicated and irrelevant.

The first ban made the claim. It was halted by court order. That included the review and recommend process.

The clock started ticking months later, but I don't know that the second EO gave a reason and time limit. Nonetheless, it, too, was halted dead in its tracks. Only little bits were allowed to come back to life--and one of those was the review and recommend process. By then it was pushing towards fall. So for most of the year the courts stopped that part of the EO. Why didn't they recommend changes by then? Because review would have violated the court order. (Did they review? Who knows? No leak claimed that they did, but if they had and it violated the court order I assume it would have been leaked.)

I don't know if the third EO, the one that's still in effect, even contains that language. Or, perhaps, it's the result of that review.

Again, who knows? Nobody asks if they reviewed, everybody keeps asking why they haven't.