Latest news with #non-Muslim-majority
Vox
2 days ago
- Politics
- Vox
How a little-known law became Trump's weapon of choice against immigration
covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. Demonstrators gather to protest against a sweeping new travel ban announced last week by President Donald Trump, outside Los Angeles International Airport on June 9, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump can't stop using — and abusing — his legal authority to block the entry of noncitizens into the country. When he issued a travel ban on citizens of Muslim-majority countries early in his first term, he did so by invoking Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows him to block any foreigner if he deems that their entry would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' When he issued a proclamation turning away noncitizens who could not demonstrate the ability to pay for their health care costs, he cited Section 212(f). When he halted most legal immigration at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, first from China and then from other countries, there was Section 212(f) again. Finally, last week, he announced that he would block foreign students from receiving student visas to attend Harvard and implement a travel ban on 12 countries, as well as restrictions on seven others. The travel ban took effect on Monday, just after midnight, and the legal framework for both orders was built on Section 212(f). Some of Trump's attempts to invoke Section 212(f) have been challenged in court. Judges struck down several versions of Trump's first-term travel ban before the third iteration was ultimately upheld by the US Supreme Court (after it was expanded to include non-Muslim-majority countries). President Joe Biden rescinded the travel ban, as well as the Covid-19 and health care-related bans, when he took office, refusing to defend them in legal challenges. Most recently, a federal judge in Massachusetts also blocked Trump's order on Harvard students, and as of Monday, the State Department had returned to processing international student visas. However, in testing the limits of 212(f) through these policies, Trump has succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to affirm his broad powers to ban foreign nationals under immigration law, marking a key expansion of executive authority. While previous presidents invoked Section 212(f), none of them did so as frequently or as aggressively as Trump. The law has become a key tool to keep people out as Trump tries to implement his restrictive vision of US immigration policy. How Trump expanded presidential powers to ban foreigners Before Trump, both Democratic and Republican presidents used the 212(f) authority sparingly. It was typically employed in order to enforce United Nations sanctions or target individuals or groups associated with terrorism, human rights violations, drug trafficking, or specific international crises. Former President Barack Obama, for instance, used the authority to block Russian officials from entering the US following their country's 2014 invasion of Crimea. Former President George W. Bush used it to block Syrian officials after the 2005 assassination of the Lebanese prime minister at the hands of the Syrian-backed militant group Hezbollah, which the US designates as a terrorist organization. Former President Bill Clinton used it to impose restrictions on Nigerian military officials who impeded the country's transition to democracy by annulling the country's 1993 elections. Trump's conceptualization of 212(f), however, is markedly different. He has used the authority to block broad swaths of noncitizens from a variety of countries, not just their government officials or people involved in criminal activity. He has not spared US visa or green card holders in some cases, including those affected by his first travel ban. That has created a new legal paradigm that has afforded the president sweeping powers to keep immigrants out. The Supreme Court's 2018 decision narrowly upholding Trump's first travel ban made that shift clear. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that Section 212(f) 'exudes deference to the President in every clause.' For that reason, the court refused to question the superficial national security rationale Trump provided for the travel ban. That's despite substantial evidence that the actual motivation behind the ban was, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in the dissent, 'anti-Muslim animus' that violated the Constitution's religious liberty protections. That evidence included Trump's 2015 campaign statements calling for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,' which lower-court judges pointed to in blocking earlier versions of the travel ban in 2017. The question is whether the justices will again defer to Trump if the new travel ban and ban on international students at Harvard come before the Supreme Court. According to Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, 'court challenges to this travel ban are likely, but they may fail.' However, Yale-Loehr said, 'even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy. We are not necessarily safer by banning immigrants from these countries.' Notably, the new travel ban includes exemptions for green card holders, noncitizens from affected countries who are already in the US, and athletes from the affected countries competing in international competitions like the Olympics. He's also invoked the potential for visa overstays, in addition to the usual national security grounds, in the rationale for his latest ban. All of that might help Trump's case if the policy is challenged in court. Unlike a blanket ban on immigrants from the affected countries, it is tailored to withstand legal scrutiny by targeting only would-be immigrants who are currently not in the US. Additionally, the ban's invocation of national security concerns puts it in territory where the president has generally been afforded considerable discretion by the courts. (A fact he has taken advantage of in issuing a flurry of national emergency declarations on all sorts of issues.) Given the particulars of the new ban and the administration's previous history before the Court, some immigrant advocates have turned to Congress, rather than the courts, to intervene. They are asking for a legislative fix to stop Trump from implementing policies that will affect both US citizens who might be separated from their families and citizens of foreign countries hoping to enter the US, though such a measure would almost certainly have to wait on unified Democratic control of government.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump travel ban 2.0 is built to survive court challenges, experts say
President Donald Trump's sweeping new travel ban may prove more legally durable than its 2017 predecessor as immigration advocates prepare for a likely court battle they're not expected to win. Trump's latest travel ban expands on the policy he imposed during his first term targeting seven Muslim-majority nations, a measure the Supreme Court upheld in a 5-4 ruling. Like its predecessor, the new order relies on the same immigration statutes but may rest on firmer legal ground this time. Attorney Neama Rahmani, a California-based former federal prosecutor who specializes in immigration, told Fox News Digital he anticipated that immigration rights groups would likely sue over Trump's new order. "But they'll lose," he said, because "it's stronger than the last ban." Trump Bans Travel To Us From Several Countries To 'Block Dangerous Foreign Actors' Rahmani pointed to allegations that the last ban violated religious liberties because it singled out Muslims. This new one included "all sorts of countries," Rahmani said. Trump imposed full or partial bans on 19 countries in his new proclamation, including Muslim-majority countries like Afghanistan and Iran but also non-Muslim-majority countries like Haiti, Venezuela, Eritrea and Burundi. Read On The Fox News App "You don't have Trump saying that he's imposing a Muslim ban. Those words during the campaign, and even after he was elected, were used against him," Rahmani said, adding that the Supreme Court is also "slightly different" and a "better audience" for Trump this time around. The 5-4 split in Trump v. Hawaii fell along ideological lines and came before Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, both Trump appointees, were confirmed to the bench. Although the Supreme Court has historically given presidents wide latitude over foreign policy and national security, in 2017 the dissenting justices argued the ban amounted to unjustified religious animus disguised as national security. "The Court's decision … 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 façade of national-security concerns," the dissent read. Supreme Court To Debate Trump Restrictions On Birthright Citizenship And Enforcement Of Nationwide Injunctions Democrat lawmakers and immigration rights critics have argued that Trump's new proclamation is rooted in bigotry. Sarah Mehta, deputy director of policy and government affairs for immigration at the American Civil Liberties Union, told Fox News Digital in a statement that she believed it was designed to "further eviscerate lawful immigration pathways under the false guise of national security." "We saw the chaos that ensued from the first Trump administration's Muslim ban, and this executive order will only build on that reign of terror to target people solely based on their nationality or religious beliefs," Mehta said. Trump said in his proclamation that the restrictions were necessary to prevent terrorist attacks and mitigate other public safety risks because the countries had unreliable screening and vetting processes. Additionally, some had a high occurrence of visa overstays or were uncooperative when it came to accepting their citizens back from the United States, Trump said. Ilya Somin, who is one of the attorneys challenging Trump's sweeping tariffs in the U.S. Court of International Trade, wrote in an op-ed that it would be "nearly impossible to challenge this new travel ban on the grounds that it is motivated by ethnic or other bigotry" because of the Supreme Court's prior ruling. Somin floated the possibility of challenging the ban on other grounds, including the nondelegation doctrine, which puts limits on how much power Congress can transfer to the executive branch. He noted as an example that two courts have thus far shunned the president's attempts to bypass Congress and take tariffs into his own hands. However, Somin conceded that the travel ban presents a higher hurdle than the tariffs case. While the Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over tariffs, Somin said, it "does not clearly" say which branch of government has jurisdiction over immigration article source: Trump travel ban 2.0 is built to survive court challenges, experts say
Arab News
26-02-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Growing global halal industry requires innovation, say Makkah forum participants
MAKKAH: Participants at the Makkah Halal Forum have been exchanging ideas, including on new technologies, to boost the global industry and strengthen Saudi Arabia's position in this sector. The event, which opened on Feb. 25 and ends on Thursday, is being held at the Makkah Chamber of Commerce Exhibition and Events Center under the theme 'Sustainable Development Through Halal.' The event brings together leaders in the sector from across the world to discuss innovations, best practices, and sustainability. The event focuses on addressing challenges and shaping the future of the halal industry, with companies from 150 countries forming strategic partnerships to expand halal trade and support emerging businesses. The global halal market is projected to reach $7.7 trillion by 2025, with the halal food and beverage sector contributing $3.3 trillion. By 2034, the global halal market is expected to grow to $9.45 trillion, at an annual rate of 12.42 percent, according to the Saudi Press Agency. Zulfiqar Hamadani, CEO of Tanmiah Food Co., emphasized the rapid growth of the halal food industry in global markets, citing increasing consumer awareness and demand for sustainable, healthier food options. Speaking on the evolving perception of halal products, Hamadani highlighted key challenges and opportunities for the industry. 'Halal is the fastest-growing protein type in the global market,' he said. 'There are challenges to overcome, but consumers in the West and non-Muslim-majority countries are already recognizing that halal is more sustainable and healthier.' One of the primary reasons, Hamadani explained, is the halal slaughtering process, which ensures the complete drainage of blood from the animal, reducing the risk of diseases, particularly zoonotic ones. However, he stressed that halal is more than just the method of slaughter. Hamadani called for the strengthening of the certification process to enhance consumer trust and ensure consistency in halal standards worldwide. 'Certification is the first thing we need to achieve,' he said, urging industry leaders to work on standardizing regulations. He also emphasized the importance of research and development to modernize halal food offerings. Traditionally, halal has been associated primarily with slaughtering methods. But he pointed out that it extends to every aspect of food production — from farm to fork. This includes Shariah-compliant financing, ethical animal treatment, and sustainable agricultural practices. Igor Marti, vice president of halal markets at BRF Foods, shared his insights on how the halal industry can adapt to evolving consumer demands, stating: 'In today's fast-paced world, consumers seek convenience without compromising on health and transparency.' 'Ninety-eight percent of all the energy we have consumed at BRF Foods came from renewable sources,' Marti added. Irwandi Jaswir, deputy dean of the International Institute for Halal Research and Training at the International Islamic University Malaysia, underscored the critical role of innovation and research in unifying halal standards, promoting sustainability, and ensuring ethical compliance in the global market. Speaking at the first panel session, 'Industry Innovation for Sustainable Halal Food and Beverage,' Irwandi emphasized the need for collaborative efforts and cutting-edge solutions to address the evolving challenges in the halal food and beverage sector. Yousef Khalawi, secretary-general of the Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Development, highlighted the need for robust control and accreditation mechanisms to ensure the safety and quality of halal products. He emphasized that while everything is considered halal in Muslim countries by default, the complexities of modern life — particularly the importation of food products — require thorough verification of ingredients such as flavors, colors, and stabilizers used in food manufacturing. During the second panel discussion, Dino Selimovic, adviser to the minister of foreign affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, emphasized Europe's cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity and highlighted the nation's role in introducing the halal lifestyle to the region. He noted the growing presence of halal-certified products and services, stating that the country now has over 10,000. Iqbal Sacranie, chairman of the Muslim Trade Forum UK, highlighted the rapid growth of the halal economy in the UK and across Europe. Despite Muslims comprising only about 6 percent of the UK population — around 4 to 5 million people — Sacranie noted that the expansion is also driven by ethical considerations, with many non-Muslims increasingly engaging in sectors such as Shariah-compliant finance.
