The Corner

National Security & Defense

Trump’s Travel Ban, With Limitations, Will Be Implemented Tonight

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban, and although oral arguments will be held in October, the justices ruled that Trump has the authority to implement his policy — with some limitations — in the meantime. The measure will take effect today at 8 P.M. Eastern time.

Trump administration officials have sought to suspend admission of all refugees to the U.S. for 120 days, to cap the number of refugees in fiscal year 2017 at 50,000, and to refuse permission for anyone to enter the U.S. from the six Muslim-majority nations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — all deemed “countries of concern” in the fight against terrorism.

While some aspects of the executive order will not be implemented until a further court ruling is issued, the Trump administration has hailed the partial implementation of the ban as a victory. Nevertheless, the administration remains unable to bar anyone from the terror-ridden countries who has “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The court did not define “bona fide relationship,” thereby affording the State Department an opportunity to decide how narrowly or broadly it would be interpreted.

According to the New York Times, which obtained a State Department diplomatic cable sent to American consulates and embassies Wednesday evening, the State Department has now explicitly defined a “bona fide relationship,” or “close family”: “a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half,” the cable stated. “This includes step relationships.”

State Department officials also outlined familial relationships that are not exempt under the travel ban, including “grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancés and any other ‘extended’ family members.”

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in October, the Trump administration got what it wanted: fewer travelers from terror-ridden countries while the U.S. augments its vetting process.

Austin Yack — Austin Yack is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute and a University of California, Santa Barbara alumnus.

Most Popular

Film & TV

A Sad Finale

Spoilers Ahead. Look, I share David’s love of Game of Thrones. But I thought the finale was largely a bust, for failings David mostly acknowledges in passing (but does not allow to dampen his ardor). The problems with the finale were largely the problems of this entire season. Characters that had been ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Great Misdirection

The House Democrats are frustrated, very frustrated. They’ve gotten themselves entangled in procedural disputes with the Trump administration that no one particularly cares about and that might be litigated for a very long time. A Washington Post report over the weekend spelled out how stymied Democrats ... Read More

Australia’s Voters Reject Leftist Ideas

Hell hath no fury greater than left-wingers who lose an election in a surprise upset. Think Brexit in 2016. Think Trump’s victory the same year. Now add Australia. Conservative prime minister Scott Morrison shocked pollsters and pundits alike with his victory on Saturday, and the reaction has been brutal ... Read More
NR Webathon

We’ve Had Bill Barr’s Back

One of the more dismaying features of the national political debate lately is how casually and cynically Attorney General Bill Barr has been smeared. He is routinely compared to Roy Cohn on a cable-TV program that prides itself on assembling the most thoughtful and plugged-in political analysts and ... Read More