Home Tags Posts tagged with "trump travel ban"

trump travel ban

The Supreme Court is upholding President Donald Trump’s travel ban which covers people from several Muslim-majority countries.

Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision in a 5-4 conservative majority ruling.

At a White House meeting to discuss President Trump’s proposed border wall he lauded the decision as “a tremendous success”.

The Supreme Court’s reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration.

The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States.

President Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision saying that it was a “great victory” for the nation and constitution.

At a meeting with lawmakers, the president said: “We have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure.”

“The ruling shows that all the attacks from the media and the Democrat politicians were wrong, and they turned out to be very wrong,” he added.

President Trump said: “If you look at the European Union, they’re meeting right now to toughen up their immigration policies because they’ve been over-run, they’ve been over-run.

“And frankly, a lot of those countries are not the same places anymore.”

Image source Wikimedia

Supreme Court Approves Donald Trump’s Full Travel Ban

US Travel Ban: White House Sets New Criteria for Visa Applicants from Six Muslim Countries

The travel ban, which the Supreme Court allowed to take effect in December 2017, has been widely criticized by refugee and human rights groups.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, which said the travel ban was “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority”.

He also rejected arguments that the ban discriminated against Muslims.

He wrote: “The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.

“The text says nothing about religion.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the dissenting opinion, which argues the court failed to uphold the religious liberty guaranteed by the first amendment of the US constitution.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote: “It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns.”

The dissent also states that “a reasonable observer would conclude that [the ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus”.

The ban prevents most immigrants, refugees and visa holders from five Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen – as well as North Korea and Venezuela from entering the US.

However, the restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela were not part of the legal challenge.

President Donald Trump’s travel ban on six mainly Muslim countries can go into full effect, the Supreme Court has ruled on December 4.

The decision is a boost for President Trump’s policy against travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

The Supreme Court’s ruling covers the third version of the directive that the president has issued since taking office.

Seven of the nine justices lifted injunctions on December 4 imposed by lower courts against the policy.

Only liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have allowed the president’s order to remain blocked.

Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, California, and Richmond, Virginia, will hear arguments this week on whether the latest iteration of the policy is lawful.

Image source Flickr

US Travel Ban: White House Sets New Criteria for Visa Applicants from Six Muslim Countries

Trump Revised Travel Ban Blocked Indefinitely by Hawaii Judge

Immigration Amicus Brief: 30 More Tech Companies Sign Against Trump Travel Ban

The Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions “with appropriate dispatch”.

The case will eventually end up back in the Supreme Court.

The December 4 decision suggests America’s top judicial body may ultimately rule in favor of the administration, say legal analysts.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said the White House was “not surprised” by the Supreme Court’s decision.

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the ruling “a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people”.

However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said President Trump’s re-tweeting of British far-right videos last week showed his discrimination against Islam.

Donald Trump insisted his ban was necessary for national security and pointed to terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Brussels and Berlin as evidence.

However, in striking it down, federal judges have cited President Trump’s campaign description of his policy as a “Muslim ban” and his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

Lower courts across the US have said President Trump’s policy violated the first amendment of the US constitution covering freedom of religion.

President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban comes into effect on June 30 and people from six mainly Muslim countries and all refugees now face tougher US entry due to.

According to the new order, people without “close” family or business relationships in the US could be denied visas and barred entry.

The rules apply to people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, as well as to all refugees.

Lawyers took up positions as US airports, offering free advice.

However, there was no sign of the chaos that affected travelers when the first version of the ban was brought in at a few hours’ notice in January.

Image source Wikipedia

That is because the executive order does not affect people who already have valid visas or green cards.

US Travel Ban: White House Sets New Criteria for Visa Applicants from Six Muslim Countries

The Department of Homeland Security said it expected “business as usual at our ports of entry”.

The Supreme Court ruling on June 26 upheld the temporary ban, a key Trump policy.

However, the judges provided a major exception, for those who have “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with someone in the US.

The effect is that citizens of the affected countries with a close relative in the US, such as a spouse, parent, child or sibling, will potentially be allowed in.

In a last minute change, the Trump administration extended the definition of close family to include fiancés.

However grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces are not considered to be “bona fide” relations.

Moments before the ban began at 20:00 Washington time on June 29, it emerged that the state of Hawaii had asked a federal judge for clarification.

Hawaii’s attorney general has argued that the definition of “close family” is too narrow and may improperly prevent people from travelling to the US.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said it would be closely monitoring the guidance and implementation of the order.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a final decision on the ban when its next session begins in October.

0

The US has set new criteria for visa applicants from six mainly Muslim countries and all refugees, requiring them to have a “close” family or business tie to the United States.

The new rules, affecting people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, come into force on June 29.

They were issued after the Supreme Court partially restored President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

Donald Trump’s controversial executive order had been blocked by lower courts.

According to the new rules, for the next 90 days those without a close relationship – defined as a parent, spouse, child, son or daughter-in-law, or sibling – will not be able to enter the US.

The definition of “close” relationships excludes grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, in-laws, extended family and grandchildren.

Also exempt from the new rules are those with business or educational ties to the US.

Image source Flickr

However, the guidelines specifically state that the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading the executive order.

Trump’s New Travel Ban: Judge James Robart Declines to Issue Emergency Order to Halt Implementation

Those who already hold valid visas are not affected. Dual nationals who travel on their passport from the unaffected country will also be allowed entry.

The rules come into effect at 20:00 Washington time.

However, lawyers both for and against the ban have warned that the new restrictions – which will remain in place until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling – could open the door to a flood of legal challenges.

However, the Supreme Court will not be reviewing the case until October – which will mean the 90-day period will be largely done.

The court also approved the 120-day ban on refugees entering the US, allowing the government to bar entry to refugee claimants who do not have any “bona fide relationship” with an American individual or entity.

Trump Immigration Order: Justin Trudeau Does Not Agree with Refugee Ban

Donald Trump’s administration has put a cap on the number of refugees it is willing to accept at 50,000, which the State Department said would be reached in the next two weeks.

Rights groups have been fighting President Trump’s executive order for the last five months.

President Trump said the order was needed to stop terrorists entering the US, but critics said it was a ban on Muslims.

The order was first signed in February, but was blocked by the courts. A revised order was halted by a judge in Hawaii just hours before it was supposed to go into force in March.

President Donald Trump called the court’s decision a “victory for our national security.

Hawaii federal Judge Derrick Watson has indefinitely extended the suspension of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The judge’s ruling means President Trump will be barred from enforcing the ban on six mostly Muslim nations while it is contested in court.

In a lawsuit, the state of Hawaii says the ban would harm tourism and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

Donald Trump says his revised travel ban seeks to prevent terrorists from entering the US.

Judge Derrick Watson made the ruling on March 29 after hearing arguments from attorneys for the state of Hawaii and the DoJ.

Image source Flickr

The judge turned his earlier temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction that would have a more lasting effect.

President Trump’s executive order on March 6 would have placed a 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen and a 120-day ban on refugees.

An earlier version of the order, issued in January, sparked confusion and protests, and was blocked by a judge in Seattle.

Other courts across the US have issued different rulings on President Trump’s revised ban, with a judge in Maryland halting a part of the ban earlier this month.

Donald Trump has complained of “unprecedented judicial overreach”, pledging to take the case “as far as it needs to go”.

An appeal against the Hawaii decision would be expected to go next to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – the same court which in February said it would not block a ruling by a Seattle court to halt the original travel ban.

Under the revised order, citizens of six countries on the original January 27 order – Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen – would once more be subject to a 90-day travel ban.

Iraq was removed from the list because its government had boosted visa screening and data sharing, White House officials said.

President Trump’s revised order also lifts an indefinite ban on all Syrian refugees and says Green Card holders (legal permanent residents of the US) from the named countries will not be affected.

President Donald Trump is considering a new executive order to ban citizens of certain countries from traveling to the US after his initial attempt was overturned in the courts.

He told reporters on Air Force One that a “brand new order” could be issued as early as February 13 or 14.

The president made the announcement after an appeals court in San Francisco upheld a court ruling to suspend his original order.

The executive order barred entry from citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries.

It is unclear what a new US immigration order might look like.

Donald Trump said that it would change “very little”, but he did not provide details of any new ban under consideration.

Image source Getty Images

Despite his suggestion on February 10, President Trump’s administration may still pursue its case in the courts over the original order, which was halted a week ago by a Seattle judge.

“We’ll win that battle,” he told reporters.

Donald Trump added: “The unfortunate part is it takes time. We’ll win that battle. But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.”

An unnamed judge from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which on February 9 upheld the stay on the original order, has called on all 25 judges of that court to vote on whether to hear the appeal again.

Technically known as an en banc review, a second hearing of the case would involve an 11-judge panel, rather than the three who initially heard the appeal.

Donald Trump’s travel ban, which was hastily unveiled at the end of his first week in office, caused chaos at US airports and sparked protests across the country.

On February 9, the appeals court said the administration failed to offer “any evidence” to justify the ban, which the president said was necessary to keep the US safe from terror attacks.

However, Donald Trump insisted that the executive order was crucial for national security and promised to take action “very rapidly” to introduce “additional security” steps in the wake of the court’s decision.

The president spoke as Virginia state lawyers argued in court that his policy “resulted from animus toward Muslims”.

Their challenge focuses on the travel restrictions imposed by the ban, rather than the four-month suspension of refugee admissions.

Lawyers for the US government in Virginia wrote that “judicial second-guessing” amounted to “an impermissible intrusion” on Donald Trump’s constitutional authority.

The appeals court ruling means that visa holders from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can continue to enter the US, and refugees from around the world, who were also subject to a temporary ban, are no longer blocked either.

However, the ruling does not affect one part of Donald Trump’s controversial executive order: a cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the current fiscal year, down from the ceiling of 110,000 established under President Barack Obama.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a bid to reinstate President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration ban.

The court said it would not block a lower-court ruling that brought President Trump’s executive order to a halt.

Donald Trump made the order temporarily banning people from seven mainly Muslim countries, because of terror threats he said put national security at risk.

Image source Flickr

However, the executive order sparked protests and confusion as people were stopped at US borders.

Lawyers representing the DoJ had argued that the ban was a “lawful exercise” of presidential authority.

However, two US states said the ban was unconstitutional and discriminated against Muslims.

The case is now likely to end up at the highest court, the Supreme Court.

Thirty more tech companies have signed a brief opposing President Donald Trump’s travel ban, bringing the total number involved to 127.

Tesla, Adobe, HP and Evernote are among the new signatories.

They join 97 other companies which have filed a legal document stating the ban “inflicts significant harm” on their businesses and is unconstitutional.

The amicus brief allows parties not directly involved in a case but who feel affected by it, to give a view.

It was filed in Washington on February 5 and also includes Apple, Facebook and Microsoft as signatories.

Amazon is not part of the amicus brief but it is a witness in the original lawsuit brought by the Washington state Attorney General.

Image source Getty Images

President Trump’s executive order halted the entire US refugee program for 120 days, indefinitely banned Syrian refugees and suspended permission to enter the US for all nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries.

There is currently a nationwide temporary restraining order in place, which was issued on February 3 by a federal judge in Washington.

This means visa holders from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be allowed to enter the US until the full case has been heard.

However, Donald Trump has said he will fight the order as it puts national security at risk.

The tech group’s brief reads: “Of course, the federal government can and should implement targeted, appropriate adjustments to the nation’s immigration system to enhance the nation’s security.

“But a broad, open-ended ban – together with an indication that the ban could be expanded to other countries without notice – does not fit the goal of making the country more secure. Instead, it will undermine American interests.”

The DoJ has defended President Donald Trump’s immigration ban and urged an appeals court to reinstate it in the interests of national security.

In a 15-page brief it argued it was a “lawful exercise of the president’s authority” and not a ban on Muslims.

President Trump’s executive order temporarily banned entry for all refugees and visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries.

A hearing has been set for today on whether to allow or reject the ban.

The filing was made to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the halting of Donald Trump’s order on February 3 by a federal judge in Washington state.

Image source Flickr

The judge had ruled the ban was unconstitutional and harmful to the state’s interests.

As a result, people from the seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – with valid visas were able to travel to the US again.

The brief filed on February 6 said the Washington court had “erred in entering an injunction barring enforcement of the order”.

“But even if some relief were appropriate, the court’s sweeping nationwide injunction is vastly overbroad,” the DoJ added.

President Trump’s executive order issued on January 25 fulfilled his campaign promise to tighten restrictions on arrivals to the US.

It caused confusion at US and foreign airports when it came into force, and was widely condemned, although polls suggest that US public opinion is sharply divided on the policy.

The states of Washington and Minnesota have argued that as well as being unconstitutional, the travel ban is harmful to their residents, businesses and universities.

Attorneys general in 16 states have signed a letter condemning the ban, and lawsuits have been launched in 14 states.

Former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeleine Albright and former CIA director Leon Panetta have joined others in drafting a letter which describes the travel ban as ineffective, dangerous and counterproductive.

Lawyers for tech giants including Apple and Google have also lodged arguments with the court, saying that the travel ban would harm their companies by making it more difficult to recruit employees.

0

The Trump administration’s request to reinstate a travel ban blocked by a federal judge on February 3 has been rejected by the US federal appeals court.

The late night ruling means the travel ban will remain suspended until the full case has been heard.

The court gave the White House and the states challenging it a deadline of February 6 to present more arguments.

Two states argued that the travel ban, affecting people from seven mainly-Muslim countries, was unconstitutional.

In its appeal, the DoJ said Judge James Robart had overreached by “second guessing” the president on a national security matter.

The DoJ also argued that only the president could decide who can enter or stay in the US.

Image source Getty Images

In February 3 case, the DoJ had argued that states did not have the authority to challenge a presidential executive order.

Lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota had argued that the ban was unconstitutional because it denied people with valid entry documents the right to travel without due process.

The executive order also violated freedom of religion rights by appearing to target Muslims, they said.

Iraq, one of the countries named in the ban, has praised the revocation of the travel ban as a “move in the right direction”, Reuters reported.

Iran has also responded to Judge James Robart’s ruling by saying it would allow a US wrestling team to compete in a World Cup event it is hosting later this month.

The American wrestlers were initially denied visas after Iran said it would ban US citizens in retaliation for President Trump’s order.

However, Donald Trump has called Judge James Robart’s ruling “ridiculous”, described him as a “so-called judge” and vowed to restore the ban.

Judge James Robart has served on the federal bench since 2004 after nomination by President George W. Bush.

February 3 ruling has also seen visa holders from the affected nations scramble to get flights to the US, fearing they have a slim window to enter.

The State Department has been reversing visa cancellations and US homeland security employees have been told by their department to comply with the ruling.

Customs officials told airlines that they could resume boarding banned travelers. Qatar Airways, Air France, Etihad Airways, Lufthansa and others said they would do so.

The ban caused confusion at US and foreign airports when it came into force.

It envisages a 90-day visa suspension for anyone arriving from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

The executive order also suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, and places an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

The DoJ has filed a court motion against the suspension of President Donald Trump’s travel ban on people from seven mainly Muslim nations.

The move seeks to reverse February 3 ruling by a federal judge in Washington.

Visa holders from the affected nations have been scrambling to get flights to the United States, fearing they have a slim window to enter America.

Donald Trump’s ban last week led to mass protests and confusion at US airports.

Some 60,000 visas have been revoked since President Trump’s executive order was issued.

However, Judge James Robart’s temporary restraining order halted it nationwide with immediate effect.

Judge Robart found that legal challenges launched by two states, Washington and Minnesota, were likely to succeed.

State lawyers had argued that the ban was unconstitutional because it denied people with valid entry documents the right to travel without due process.

Image source Flickr

It also violated freedom of religion rights by appearing to target Muslims, they said.

Donald Trump called Judge James Robart’s ruling “ridiculous”, vowing to restore the ban.

The ban envisages a 90-day visa suspension for anyone arriving from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

The executive order also suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, and places an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

The appeal against the suspension was formally filed by the Department of Justice on February 4.

Donald Trump is named as one of the appellants in his capacity as president, along with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

The administration argues that the travel ban is designed to protect the US, and it is seeking an emergency stay that would restore the restrictions.

Meanwhile, President Trump took to Twitter to rage against Judge James Robart, who has served on the federal bench since 2004 after nomination by President George W. Bush.

He tweeted: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Donald Trump later added in another tweet: “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?”

He later predicted that the appeal would succeed.

“We’ll win. For the safety of the country, we’ll win,” Donald Trump told reporters.

The state department has said it is reversing visa cancelations and US homeland security employees have been told by their department to comply with the ruling.

Customs officials told airlines that they could resume boarding banned travelers. Qatar Airways, Air France, Etihad Airways, Lufthansa and others said they would do so.

Travelers from the affected countries have been trying to use the window of opportunity by boarding US-bound flights on February 4.

However, there were also reports that a number of travelers were not allowed to fly to America.

In Djibouti, east Africa, immigrants from all seven countries on the list were not allowed to fly, an immigration attorney was quoted as saying by AP.

Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban on people from seven mainly Muslim countries has been rolled back after a judge suspended it.

The state department said it was reversing the cancelation of visas, 60,000 of which were revoked after the executive order.

Judge James Robart ruled there were legal grounds to challenge the ban.

President Trump reacted furiously, calling Judge Robart’s ruling “ridiculous” and vowing to restore his ban.

People affected by the ban treated news of the suspension warily as airlines began allowing them to board flights to America on February 4.

Judge James Robart’s temporary restraining order on February 3 halted the ban with immediate effect.

Image source Getty Images

Since then, the state department has said it is reversing visa cancellations and US homeland security employees have been told by their department to comply with the ruling.

Customs officials told airlines that they could resume boarding banned travelers. Qatar Airways, Air France, Etihad Airways, Lufthansa and others said they would do so.

The Trump administration argues that the travel ban is designed to protect the United States.

It has promised to seek “at the earliest possible time” an emergency stay that would restore the restrictions.

Meanwhile, the US president has raged against Judge James Robard on Twitter.

He tweeted: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

“When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security – big trouble!”

The executive order which has now been suspended banned Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Anyone arriving from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan or Yemen faced a 90-day visa suspension.

Huge protests greeted the ban in the US, where demonstrators swamped airports to convey their message that America still welcomed refugees.

0

Seattle Judge James Robart has issued a temporary nationwide block on President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from seven mainly Muslim nations.

The federal judge ruled against government lawyers’ claims that US states did not have the standing to challenge Donald Trump’s executive order.

Last week’s order has led to protests and confusion at US airports.

Customs officials have told US airlines that they can resume boarding banned travelers while a legal case is heard.

Gulf carrier Qatar Airways told Reuters it would start accepting all passengers with valid travel documents.

Trump administration, however, could again block them if it were to win an emergency stay. The justice department says it will appeal against the Seattle ruling.

In a statement, the White House described Donald Trump’s directive as “lawful and appropriate”.

“The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people,” the statement said.

President Trump’s order suspended the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.

There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. Anyone arriving from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan or Yemen faces a 90-day visa suspension.

The lawsuit against Donald Trump’s ban was initially filed by Washington State, with Minnesota joining later.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson described the ban as unconstitutional.

Donald Trump has argued that his directive is aimed at protecting America. Critics respond by saying that most terror attacks in the US in recent years have been carried out by home-grown militants.

He said visas would once again be issued once “the most secure policies” were in place, and denied it was a ban on Muslims.

Courts in at least four other states – Virginia, New York, Massachusetts and Michigan – are hearing cases challenging President Trump’s executive order.

On February 3, a judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary ban that prohibited the detention or removal of foreigners legally authorized to come to America.

The ban – which only applied to Massachusetts – is due to expire on February 5.

0

President Donald Trump is standing firm over his ban on immigration from seven countries despite court rulings and mass protests against it.

In a statement, the president said visas would once again be issued once “the most secure policies” were in place, and denied it was a Muslim ban.

The move has been widely condemned.

Meanwhile, 16 state attorneys general have said the order is unconstitutional. Several federal judges have temporarily halted the deportation of visa holders.

Donald Trump’s executive order, signed on January 27, halted the entire US refugee program for 120 days, indefinitely banned Syrian refugees, and suspended all nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Those who were already mid-flight were detained on arrival – even if they held valid US visas or other immigration permits. It is not known how many others were turned away at airports overseas as they tried to board flights to the US.

Thousands gathered at airports around the country to protest on January 28, including lawyers who offered their services for free to those affected.

Image source Flickr

Further demonstrations were held on January 29, including protests outside the White House and Trump Tower in New York.

As well as the ban on all refugees, travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are not permitted to enter the United States for 90 days, or be issued an immigrant or non-immigrant visa.

This includes those who share dual nationality with allied countries, although Canada has been told its dual nationals are not affected.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said US green-card holders – legal residents – would also not be affected, but some have been detained since the order came into effect.

President Trump tweeted early on January 29 that the US needed “extreme vetting, NOW” but later, in a statement, tried to offer more reassuring words, saying: “This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe.

“We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.”

Reince Priebus rejected criticism that the implementation of the order had been chaotic, and said only 109 people, out of 325,000 travelling, had been detained and “most of those people were moved out”.

He told reporters on January 29: “We’ve got a couple of dozen more that remain and I would suspect that as long as they’re not awful people that they will move through before another half a day today.”

However, they have failed to allay concern among some in their Republican party. Senator John McCain said the order would “probably, in some areas, give ISIS some more propaganda”, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said it was important to remember that “some of our best sources in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are Muslims”.

Democratic Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer said the US now appeared “less humanitarian, less safe, less American” and said the Democrats would introduce legislation to overturn it.

In a joint statement, 16 attorneys general, from states including California, New York and Pennsylvania, said they would “use all of the tools of our offices to fight this unconstitutional order” and, until it was struck down, would “work to ensure that as few people as possible suffer from the chaotic situation that it has created”.

Yesterday, federal Judge Ann Donnelly, in New York, ruled against the removal from the US of people with approved refugee applications, valid visas, and “other individuals… legally authorized to enter the United States”.