Latest world news

The Unstoppable Donald

Published

10 years ago

February 10, 2017

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The stay on his executive order banning entry of foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries to the United States may have been upheld in court, but mere technicalities will not dishearten the American president who has now learnt his lesson and will plan his course carefully

By Sujit Bhar

US President Donald Trump’s exhortations about “so-called” judges and about how he will have the several bans on his executive order on immigration from seven Muslim states “overturned” hit a huge hurdle on February 9. A three-judge bench of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was unanimous in upholding the decision of a Federal District Court judge which had stayed the implementation of Trump’s executive order.

The district judge’s order had provided a temporary stay, and the decision of the bench is also a temporary one. If one knows Trump—and of late people have come to know his arrogance a little too well—he will not stop till the Supreme Court.

The order itself, which runs into 28 pages (plus one), has considered the circumstances under which an emergency order was sought from the Justice Department to have the district court ban lifted. And the bench was not satisfied. The court has been able to look into the immediate reality, an area Trump didn’t really care about while placing the blanket ban.

The bench said it considered “several factors, including… the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay”. It was a technical judgement, which relied on the wording of the appeal of the Justice Department. The bench said: “We hold that the government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.”

The court order, therefore, does not look into the merits or demerits of the broader Trump executive order. Neither does it need to, at this point. What it needed to satisfy itself with was whether the Justice Department’s appeal to lift the ban itself has merit. The bench found that it does not.

The Justice Department’s appeal was possibly hastily prepared, without paying heed to specifics that seasoned judges would pounce on quickly. When an argument comes in front of judges, asking for the repeal of an order, the issue would be read from the last, backwards. This one got stuck within the periphery of the appeal itself. It had asked for a blanket withdrawal, as was wont, but the argument hinged on a total rejection, without scrutiny, because the two states seemingly cannot sue. The critical reason for rejecting the appeal wasn’t a broad sociopolitical one. It was because, among others, it would not allow eligible and meritorious foreign students to come in and attend universities.

This is a technical glitch for Trump and his band of men. They aren’t going to back out and walk into the sunset. The administration has said clearly that it will use “every legal means” to reinstate Trump’s executive order. So the legal battle continues, while experts look at what is extent of the US president’s power in enforcing an executive order.

Frankly, as it seems today, the powers are calibrated against the president being able to coerce the citizenry into doing things that would be harmful for society.

Interestingly, though “social harm” and national security happen to be the crux of Trump’s order. If national security is taken out of the order, “social harm” would assume immense proportions, with as many interpretations as there are races and sects. That would be hard to negotiate and create a legal minefield. Trump is not averse to walking that minefield, however.

As a beginning, Trump has declared that the district judge who blocked his travel ban remains responsible in the event of an attack on America. He castigated Judge James Robart for placing American lives in “peril”, because the blockade of the travel ban would supposedly result in terrorists from those seven Muslim countries “pouring in” to the country, endangering all.

However strange this contention, it was his primary peg for hanging his travel ban on the wall. That was what gave him the courage to declare, at a gala at the Mar a Lago resort in Florida (where he was holidaying): “We’ll win. For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”

It wasn’t surprising that Trump was quiet (till the time of writing this he has not spoken against the court order), while leaving a hapless Vice-President Mike Pence to cover for him, that too on the administration’s favourite Fox News. Pence has been quoted as saying: “We’re going to continue to use all legal means at our disposal to stay that order and move forward to take the steps necessary to protect our country.”

But The Donald has not been able to take the Mickey out of Pence, it seems. He still possesses a mind that can think. About the district judge’s order Pence has not called it “ridiculous”, like Trump has, but has been quoted as saying: “He (the judge) certainly does (have the authority to block the ban), and that’s why the administration is complying with that order as we speak.”

The fight will continue, and this time the Justice Department and the administration will surely be more careful.

One part of the order of the appellate bench says: “…The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the executive order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave.”

If you read this carefully, probably the fight will not be just about the travel ban. It could well evolve into an avatar against the new anti-H1B acts that are progressing through the law-making processes even as we speak.

That will be another story.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Up Next

“Heritage is not just something which is 100 years old”

Don't Miss

US Defense secretary James Mattis calls Manohar Parikar

Latest world news

Putin praises PM Modi, says he has very good ideas on Ukraine war

Russian President Vladimir Putin has praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for repeatedly raising the need to end the Ukraine war, describing his ideas for a settlement as “very good”.

Published

1 day ago

October 2, 2026

APNLive Desk

Russian President Vladimir Putin has praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his continued efforts to promote an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, saying the Indian leader has “very good ideas” aimed at finding a mutually acceptable solution.

Putin made the remarks while addressing the Valdai Forum of international Russia experts, where he spoke about Modi’s repeated efforts to raise the issue of ending the conflict.

What Putin said about PM Modi

Putin said Modi has continued to raise the question of ending the conflict despite the close and friendly relationship between India and Russia.

According to Putin, the Prime Minister has shown a strong interest in finding a solution and has ideas that could help identify mutually acceptable ways to resolve the conflict.

Putin also described India’s position as neutral while highlighting Modi’s interest in bringing the conflict to an end through peaceful means.

The Russian president expressed gratitude to Modi for his ideas and his desire to see the conflict end as soon as possible.

Modi’s position on the Ukraine war

PM Modi has repeatedly called for dialogue and diplomacy to resolve conflicts, including during his meetings with Putin.

During their September 11 meeting in New Delhi, Modi reiterated that dialogue and diplomacy are the way forward for resolving conflicts.

Modi had also told Putin during their meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Bishkek that the situation needed to move from “endless war” towards an end to the war.

India has consistently maintained that conflicts should be addressed through dialogue and peaceful means, with Modi previously describing the present period as not being an era of war.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict began in February 2022 and has continued despite repeated diplomatic efforts to seek a resolution.

Latest world news

S Jaishankar calls Pakistan a “serial practitioner of terrorism” at UN

S Jaishankar criticised Pakistan at the UN General Assembly, referring to a “serial practitioner of terrorism” and warning against attempts to normalise terrorism.

Published

6 days ago

September 27, 2026

APNLive Desk

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar criticised Pakistan during his address to the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, saying that a “serial practitioner of terrorism” had misrepresented facts and that arguments were being made to normalise terrorism.

Jaishankar’s remarks came a day after Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif addressed the UN General Assembly and spoke about the 2025 military confrontation between India and Pakistan.

Jaishankar’s message to Pakistan

Referring to Pakistan without naming it directly in that remark, Jaishankar said a “serial practitioner of terrorism” had misrepresented facts before the UN General Assembly.

He said arguments were being made to normalise terrorism and claim immunity from its consequences, adding that such an approach would not stand.

Jaishankar reiterated India’s position that the country would exercise its right to defend itself against terrorism.

He also said that friendship and goodwill could not coexist with terrorism and that understandings based on such circumstances would naturally be called into question.

“It is for the perpetrator of terrorism to mend its ways,” Jaishankar said.

India stresses zero tolerance on terrorism

Jaishankar described terrorism as a persistent threat to peace and called for governments involved in cross-border terrorism to be held accountable.

He also stressed that there should be no dilution in India’s zero-tolerance approach towards terrorism and particularly called for greater attention to its financial aspects.

His remarks came a day after Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif referred to the 2025 India-Pakistan military confrontation during his UN General Assembly address.

Jaishankar backs two-state solution for Palestine

During his UN address, Jaishankar also spoke about the situation in West Asia and said India was prepared to contribute to efforts addressing food and energy security amid continuing tensions and violence.

On the Palestine issue, he reiterated India’s longstanding support for a two-state solution.

Jaishankar said India was also contributing humanitarian assistance and relief efforts for the Palestinian people.

He also warned about continuing threats and pressures around the world and stressed the need for greater stability, security and predictability.

Latest world news

Trump rejects Iran’s 7-day peace plan, says deal can come after US polls

US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s seven-day proposal to end hostilities and indicated that a deal could come after the US midterm elections in November.

Published

1 week ago

September 26, 2026

APNLive Desk

US President Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s latest proposal aimed at bringing an end to the ongoing conflict, while indicating that a possible agreement could come after the US midterm elections in November.

Iran had proposed a seven-day framework under which hostilities could be brought to an end, the Strait of Hormuz could be reopened and negotiations over its nuclear programme could resume.

Iran’s seven-day proposal

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran had put forward the proposal through intermediaries. Under the plan, the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened by the end of the seventh day if specified conditions were met, while broader nuclear discussions would restart.

The proposal was based largely on an earlier understanding reached between Washington and Tehran, but Iran sought to implement the latest framework much faster. The earlier arrangement had provided a longer period for negotiations.

The Strait of Hormuz is a strategically important waterway for global energy shipments, making its reopening a key element of any effort to ease the wider conflict.

Trump points to US midterm elections

Trump, speaking at the United Nations, showed no indication that he was ready to immediately resume negotiations on the terms proposed by Tehran.

He called for the economic isolation of Iran and said he believed a deal could be reached after the US midterm elections in November. Trump also said Iran was waiting to see how he performed in the midterm elections.

The remarks came as Iranian officials signalled that they remained open to diplomacy and described the UN General Assembly as an opportunity to revive negotiations.

Nuclear talks remain part of Iran proposal

Iran’s latest plan links the easing of hostilities with the resumption of negotiations over its nuclear programme.

The proposal follows the collapse of an earlier US-Iran arrangement. According to reporting on the latest proposal, the new framework is intended to compress the timeline for implementing commitments that had previously been discussed by the two sides.

For now, Trump’s remarks indicate that Washington is not accepting Tehran’s seven-day framework as presented, while Iran continues to put diplomacy and negotiations forward as part of its proposal.