Diluted travel ban is weakened further in Hawaii court ruling

A Hawaii judge ruled Thursday to expand the list of ‘bona fide’ relationships with US citizens or entities that a citizen of one of six Muslim-majority countries must have to be considered for a new visa.  

George Lee/The Star-Advertiser/AP
On Thursday, United States District Judge Derrick Watson (seen here in Honolulu in December 2015) expanded the definition of what constitutes a ‘bona fide’ relationship after the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals gave him the authority to interpret the Supreme Court’s scaled-back version of President Trump’s travel ban. Watson’s broadened definition now includes grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of people in the US.

In another setback for President Trump, a federal judge in Hawaii has further weakened his already diluted travel ban by vastly expanding the list of family relationships with United States citizens that visa applicants can use to get into the U.S.

The ruling is the latest piece of pushback in the fierce fight set off by the ban Mr. Trump first attempted in January. It will culminate with arguments in front of the US Supreme Court in October.

The current rules aren't so much an outright ban as a tightening of already-tough visa policies affecting citizens from six Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran, and Yemen. People from those countries who already have visas will be allowed into the country. Only narrow categories of people, including those with relatives named in Thursday's ruling, will be considered for new visas.

US District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday ordered the government not to enforce the ban on grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of people in the US.

"Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents," Mr. Watson said in his ruling. "Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members."

Watson also ruled that the government may not exclude refugees who have formal assurance and promise of placement services from a resettlement agency in the US.

The US Supreme Court, which last month allowed a scaled-back version of the ban to go into effect before it hears the case in October, exempted visa applicants from the ban if they can prove a "bona fide" relationship with a US citizen or entity.

The Trump administration defined "bona fide" relationship as those who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling already in the US.

The case came back to Watson when the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he had the authority to interpret the Supreme Court's order and block any violation of it.

Watson's Thursday ruling broadened the definition of what counts as a "bona fide" relationship to include grandparents and the rest of the wider list of relatives.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who represents the state as the plaintiff in the case, said the court made clear "that the US government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit."

"Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough," Mr. Chin said in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that workers who accepted jobs from American companies, students who enrolled at a US university, or lecturers invited to address a US audience would also be exempt.

A relationship created for purposes of avoiding the travel ban would not be acceptable, the justices said.

Trump proposed a blanket ban on Muslims during his campaign but limited it to a handful of countries when he issued his initial travel ban in January, promoting it as a necessary tool for national security and fighting terrorism.

It set off massive protests at airports around the country and immediately sparked a sprawling, ongoing legal fight.

Courts blocked that first ban as well as a second the Trump administration had retooled until the Supreme Court partially reinstated it at the end of June.

It's unclear how significantly the new rules have affected or will affect travel. In most of the countries singled out, few people have the means for leisure travel. Those that do already face intensive screenings before being issued visas.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.