Immigration Law: Travel Ban and Supreme Decision

immigration law: But much remains murky What exactly is a bona fide relationship Who gets to decide Will the travel ban even still be an issue by the time the justices hear arguments Here's a look at some key issues surrounding Trump's executive order WHO'S THE WINNER After the lower courts found the travel ban unconstitutionally biased against Muslims and contrary to federal immigration law, Trump hailed the Supreme Court's decision as a clear victory for our national security, according to Metro News. It was a legal win for the administration to an extent. The high court said the president's 90-day ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced pending arguments scheduled for October as long as those visitors lack a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Three justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the travel ban to take effect as written. Likewise, the justices said, refugees can travel to the U.S. if they demonstrate those connections contrary to the part of Trump's executive order suspending the nation's refugee program. But the other six kept blocking it as it applies to those travelling to the U.S. on employment, student or family immigrant visas as well as other cases where the traveller can show a bona fide connection to the U.S. That's no minor exception, according to immigrant groups, who say relatively few people come to the U.S. from the affected countries without such close ties. (www.immigrantscanada.com). As reported in the news.