In another rebuke that further waters down his already watered-down Muslim ban 2.0, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson of Federal District Court in Hawaii ordered Donald Trump to exempt grandparents and other close relatives from his most recent executive order banning travelers from six Muslim countries for 90 days. “Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Judge Watson wrote in his order. “Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The government’s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.”
The judge also ordered the government to allow refugees with ties to a resettlement agency to enter the U.S., a significant victory because that’s how refugees enter in the first place. Refugees already “undergo the strictest background checks of any group of people entering the U.S.”—a process that can last up to two years—but the Muslim ban 2.0 established a 50,000 cap that was already reached this week. Now Judge Watson’s order could stand to affect thousands of refugees who have already been vetted and are waiting for brand-new lives here. Make no mistake, it’s a major loss for Trump and a major win for American values:
Last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a scaled-back version of the travel ban could proceed. Applicants who could show a “bona fide relationship” with a “person or entity” in the United States would be exempt from the 90-day ban on travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and the 120-day ban on refugees from around the world.
The Supreme Court did not specify which individuals or entities would qualify as close relations. However, the State Department said that they would include spouses, parents, parents-in-law, children, sons- and daughters-in-law, fiancés and siblings of those already in the United States. They would not include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins, brothers- and sisters-in-law. It also decided that a resettlement agency’s relationship to those it planned to settle in the United States would not circumvent the ban.
Hawaii challenged the administration’s interpretation of what constitutes a close relationship. Judge Watson agreed that the White House contradicted the Supreme Court’s order.
Friday, Jul 14, 2017 · 6:32:40 PM +00:00 · Gabe Ortiz
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has released a statement saying the administration will challenge Judge Watson’s decision to permit menacing grandmas into the U.S. Sessions must be trying to stop the obvious outcome of all this: Menacing grandmas throwing 60-pound bags of Werther's Originals stuffed with drugs over the wall.
"An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones: it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades,” wrote Judge Watson.
"Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.”
According to Vox’s Dara Lind, “it’s unlikely that the Trump administration is going to breezily accept Judge Watson’s ruling—the Supreme Court already limited the scope of the ban pretty seriously for anyone coming to the US on a visa, and Judge Watson’s ruling all but neuters it for refugees as well. But the Ninth Circuit, the court that the administration would have to appeal Judge Watson’s ruling to, is more likely to side with Watson on this; after all, they sided with him in June to keep the travel ban on hold entirely.”