There may be less confusion as the ban is partially reinstated.
Depending on who you ask, Alaskans appear to be divided on the Monday announcement from the U.S. Supreme Court to re-instate the temporary travel ban from six countries, and refugee admissions to the United States.
The first ban ordered by President Trump on January 27 put a blanket ban on people from Iraq, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen and indefinitely halted the acceptance of refugees from Syria. However, the Supreme Court isn't back in session to hear arguments on the travel ban until October.
Individuals who have valid immigrant or non-immigrant visas issued on or before June 26, 2017: These individuals are not included in the travel ban.
But what Trump called a victory could also prove to be the breakpoint Republicans can use to show they're independent of a president whose approval ratings struggle to remain at 40 percent. That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends September 30.
Three of the court's conservative justices said they would have let the complete bans take effect. Justice Clarence Thomas said the government's interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco raised another objection: that although the order rests on the president's authority to restrict immigration for national-security reasons, Trump failed to justify it on those grounds.
"The highest court in the land has clearly affirmed that the Trump Administration can not block people who are coming in on family visas and who have their families members here", Adams said. "I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive", Trump added.More news: California father accused of killing son to appear in court
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to disclose the information.
But some immigration lawyers said relatively few people would fall under the ban because people coming to study, work or visit family members already have sufficient relationships with others already is in the country.
As the nation's high court revived Trump's travel ban, which lower courts sidetracked by injunction earlier this year, its 16-page order revived debate for and against the controversial executive order. Marco Rubio, R, Fla. said of the court action.
While the ban did not single out Muslims, lower court judges cited Trump's repeated campaign statements that he meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States.
Trump then issued a revised travel ban, which is still being fought in the court system.
Groups that challenged the ban, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that most people from the affected countries seeking entry to the United States would have the required connections.
But some immigrant advocates are concerned that a refugee's relationship with US resettlement group might be questioned at the airport. Many of them have family ties in the United States, she said, and have established relationships with US-based resettlement organizations. The effect on refugees could be greater because they are less likely to have family, school or business relationships in the United States. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a Republican leader in the Senate, said the administration should focus on implementing a more rigorous vetting system.