Admittedly, there may be many good reasons to be critical of new US President Trump (as this blog has pointed out already during his election campaign), or of his planned immigration policy. But the true problem of the US is not the President. The problem is the judiciary.
This is from yesterday’s New York Times:
A federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Trump’s revised travel ban, saying it “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” Continue reading
The well-known Jesuit Henri Boulad, former Provincial of the Jesuits in Egypt and director of the Jesuit Cultural Center in Alexandria, has a life-long experience of what it means to live as a non-Muslim in a predominantly Islamic country. A few weeks ago, he has accepted Hungarian citizenship in order to support the restrictive migration policy of the Hungarian head of government, Viktor Orbán, and to exert a corresponding influence on the European immigration policy. Continue reading
There are many reasons to doubt the wisdom of President Trump’s decree restricting immigration from a number of predominantly Muslim countries – both in its initial version of end January and in its revised version. However, the decisions issued by Federal Judges in Hawaii and Maryland yesterday to block the revised decree from coming into force say more about those judges than about the decree. And they undermine the judiciary branch’s credibility rather than the President’s. Continue reading
The European Court of Human Rights continues undermining its own prestige and authority – this time with a controversial judgment condemning Hungary for having illegally “detained” two asylum seekers from Bangladesh in the transit zone next to the country’s border to neighbouring Serbia. The judgement is not yet final, as Hungary can still ask for the referral of the case to a Grand Chamber. The Hungarian government, which has criticised the Decision in sharp words, is expected to ask for such referral, but very possibly will not comply with the Decision anyway, even if it should be confirmed. Continue reading
In the case of X and X v. Belgium, the European Court of Justice has ruled that EU Member States’ embassies and consulates do not have an obligation to grant so-called “humanitarian visas” to people who claim to be in danger of being persecuted in their countries of origin. With this decision, the Court has overruled the legal opinion issued by its Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi.
Fear of the consequences of uncontrolled mass immigration was one of the main reasons for Americans to elect Donald Trump as their new President, and for Brits to vote for Brexit.
But Paolo Mengozzi, an Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, knows better. In the opinion he delivered to the Court in the case of X and X v. Belgium — which could be reflected in the Court’s final ruling — he found that EU countries “must issue a visa” in cases where refusing one would place someone “at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.” Continue reading
An average of 55 per cent of people across 10 European countries said they want to stop all future immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, the Independent reports.
A Chatham House study, conducted before US President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning immigration to the US from seven countries, found that in all but two of the ten states surveyed a clear majority of respondents opposed immigration from mainly Muslim countries. Continue reading