New Jersey families decry Supreme Court decision upholding travel ban

Spouses kept apart, people unable to travel for work, missed weddings and funerals. New Jersey families with ties to the five majority-Muslim countries named in President Donald Trump’s travel ban say it has already caused havoc and disruption in their lives.

On Tuesday, they were saddened to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the ban in a 5-4 decision, with the conservative justices in the majority.

"For my family, personally, and my uncle who was the first person to come to the United States, who came here seeking political asylum, it's a real disappointment, to put it mildly, that a country that had welcomed him previously with open arms is now closing the door to Muslim families," said Leila Amirhamzeh, 41, of Hackensack. 

Amirhamzeh's uncle missed his mother's funeral in Iran when the first version of the ban went into effect in January 2017. A green card holder, he feared he would be unable to re-enter the United States. Now, Amirhamzeh said, she expects that cousins, aunts and uncles in Iran will have to cancel their trip for a fall wedding in Bergen County.

SCOTUS:Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban against majority-Muslim countries

BIAS:14 New Jersey women alleging anti-Muslim bias at Newark Airport security

REFUGEES:For Syrian refugees in North Jersey, English lessons are a lifeline

"In light of everything else happening, it's just another example of the administration's efforts to separate families from their loved ones," she said. 

Rallies were held across the country on Tuesday to protest the decision to uphold the ban, including one in Paterson.

The court's decision capped a legal battle that began when Trump issued his first travel ban the week after he took office, sparking widespread protests and legal challenges. Trump argued that the ban was needed for national security reasons, but opponents, led by the state of Hawaii, challenged it, saying it was motivated by anti-Muslim bias.

A third version of the ban, imposed by executive order in September, barred people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia from entering the United States. North Korea and a small group of Venezuelans also were included in the ban.  

Jamie Issa of Garfield, who came to the United States from Syria in 1979, said she was heartbroken by the news of the Supreme Court decision. Her 25-year-old niece, she said, married her college sweetheart in October and had paid fees and filled out paperwork to bring him to the United States. Issa's niece's new husband, who is Syrian, is living and working in Lebanon.

"The first year she knew him, she loved him," Issa said, adding that they had been engaged for four years.

Her niece moved to the United States last year with her parents and siblings after the ban was temporarily lifted, having waited 12 years for green cards so they could join relatives in New Jersey.

The niece, who was trained as a lawyer in Syria and now lives in Lodi, has been working at least 50 hours a week at a supermarket and an Olive Garden restaurant "to try and build a life and save money for her husband when he comes."

Now, Issa worries they will be kept apart indefinitely. "Already she is crazy. She misses him," she said. 

Paterson rally denounces decision

Dozens of people gathered outside the Islamic Center of Passaic County in Paterson on Tuesday evening to show their opposition of the Supreme Court's decision.

The crowd chanted "Muslim rights are human rights" and "Love, not hate." Speakers took turns condemning the ban. 

"This decision is on the wrong side of history," said Nadia Kahf, chairwoman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Kahf, an attorney from Passaic County who wore a hijab as she spoke, likened Tuesday's decision to those that supported slavery or the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. 

The people in the audience of many different backgrounds held signs saying "Dissent is patriotic" or "Stand with Muslims."

Kevin Cazarex, 14, of Clifton said he was frustrated with the president's stance on the travel ban.

"He’s segregating everyone," Cazarex said. "Times like these it’s important for everyone to be together instead of separated and bickering."

Even though he does not know anyone personally affected by the travel ban, Zellie Thomas of Paterson said he needed to get involved.

"Last year I thought this was over, and unfortunately it’s never over with a president like Donald Trump," Thomas said. "The attacks keep coming, whether it’s coming from him personally or the Supreme Court. We saw that many people are not welcome here in the United States, and we have to keep fighting back to make this a country where everyone is welcome." 

Outcry extends through New Jersey

Mazin Kirdi, 40, of Sicklerville, who came to United States in 1991, said his sister had planned to travel from Syria to New Jersey in July to see their mother, who is having surgery to remove a tumor in her head. Kirdi said his sister has not seen their mother since 2012, when she joined her son in the United States.

"Of course it's going to upset me," Kirdi said. "My sister cannot come see our mother. We don’t know will happen in surgery."

"We’re American," he added. "We’re allowed to have family members come visit."

The restrictions have prevented most people from the affected countries from immigrating to the United States and from working, studying or visiting family here. The Trump administration said countries were included in the ban because they did not share adequate information about threats or identity.

In a statement Tuesday, the White House called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the American people and the Constitution." 

“The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the president to defend the national security of the United States," the statement read. "In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country."

Some organizations, which had shown support for the ban, said the Supreme Court decision was the right one.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said the ban “was a common-sense reaction to the new realities of terrorism” that would reduce risk and heighten national security.

“The president acted responsibly when he put the executive order in place,” Stein said. “Likewise, the Supreme Court interpreted the law correctly and acted responsibly when it ruled the order to be constitutional. Today’s decision is a great victory for the security of the American people and for the rule of law."

But in New Jersey, under Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, state officials have fought the ban. In March, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal joined a coalition of states in support of a lawsuit opposing Trump’s third ban on travel, calling it harmful and unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, Gov. Phil Murphy voiced his opinion online, calling the decision "deeply troubling."

"Make no mistake, this is a ban targeting Muslims, as stated by the president himself," he wrote on Twitter. "New Jersey will not stand for this xenophobic and discriminatory agenda."

Facing a stigma

Issa said she supports strict immigration control, but that it was misguided to bar people from an entire country. Issa and her family are part of Syria's Christian minority, whose members say they are also being hurt by the travel ban.

"He thinks all the Syrian people are bad. He’s wrong," she said, noting that Syrians had not been behind any attacks in the United States. 

Huda Shanawani, 65, of Millburn said Syrians are facing a stigma because of the ban. "We’re paying the price for somebody else’s actions," she said.

She said her nephew, a businessman from Syria, travels around the world for work but is no longer able to get a visa to come to the United States.

"This is not the United States I know," said Shanawani, a native of Syria who has lived in the United States for 45 years. "I never thought we'd reach the stage where we have separation between countries. It's very sad."

Under U.S. law, presidents have wide discretion to make national security judgments and to control immigration. Still, the groups challenging what they called the "Muslim ban" said it violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the government's favoring one religion over another.

They cited Trump’s anti-Muslim comments and tweets, including his remarks on the campaign trail calling for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States, as evidence of bias.

Muslim Americans said they were concerned that the ban would send the wrong message at a time when bias is on the rise.

Hazim Yassin, a Red Bank resident and president of the American Muslim Action Network, based in Monmouth County, said Muslims have faced more hate crimes and bullying in schools.

"This just contributes to the overall concept that Muslims are second-class citizens," said Yassin, 28.

Many religious leaders in New Jersey also decried the ban, with some linking it to a wider crackdown by the administration that has led to a spike in deportations of undocumented immigrants and legal residents, and to the separation of children from their migrant parents at the southwestern border. 

“Just like we have an administration that’s based on racial and ethnic hatred, our Supreme Court stands right with the administration, and that’s really sad,” said Seth Kaper-Dale, an immigrant rights advocate and the co-pastor of the Reformed Church of Highland Park.  

The Rev. Karen G. Johnston of the Unitarian Society in East Brunswick said the court's decision "was a failure of America to live up to its highest ideals."

"I find this decision, like many recent government responses to immigrants and migrants, to be done in the name of security, but truly make this country a more dangerous place," Johnston said in an email. 

"It is being done in the name of a misleading sense of false security," she said. "It is most certainly not in my name. I hope more American citizens continue to rise up to share this same sentiment: not in our name.”

'It can happen to anyone'

Administration lawyers argued that the ban was legal because it allowed case-by-case waivers. But advocates say those waivers were nearly impossible to get.

Samer Khalaf of Paramus, national president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the ban was unnecessary because U.S. officials have tremendous discretion over who gets visas, which are already tough to obtain.

“He didn’t need to sign a proclamation to effect the ban,” Khalef said. “This is just red meat for his base.”

Khalaf said the decision was "a repugnant affirmation that religion or national origin can be used to determine one's access to basic freedoms." 

Muslim Advocates, a civil rights group, said the decision gives a green light to religious discrimination. 

"Since the Muslim ban was allowed to go into effect late last year, the administration has separated families and loved ones, and denied people opportunities to work, travel, study, seek medical care, and better our nation, simply because of what they believe and where they come from," the organization wrote.

This decision, said Muslim Advocates, could set a precedent and put other Americans at risk. "If it can happen to Muslims, it can happen to anyone."

Staff Writers Joshua Jongsma and Susan Loyer contributed to this article.