SAN ANTONIO – The third version of President Donald Trump's travel ban proved to be the charm, enough that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it, rejecting arguments it discriminated against Muslims.
“I don’t think it was a victory,” said Sakim Shaikh, spokesman for the Muslim Children Education and Civic Center. “This is the most watered-down victory that anyone could get.”
Shaikh said he believes the ban now has exceptions for various travel categories, although none for some of the most of dangerously violent countries, such as Syria and Yemen.
Shaikh said the ban could impact “real refugees who are hoping to seek asylum or resettlement from war-torn countries.”
“It’s truly a loss for them,” Shaikh said.
The travel ban to the U.S. involves five countries with Muslim majorities, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as North Korea and some government officials from Venezuela.
“It’s still discriminatory in its motivation, so let’s not pretend like we don’t know where it came from," Shaikh said.
On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump promised supporters “a total and complete ban on Muslims entering the country.”
President Trump has said he wanted the travel ban to protect national security.
Sarwat Husein, president of Council of American-Islamic Relations of San Antonio, said she disagrees the ruling is a victory.
“The way I look at it, it’s heartless and xenophobic,” Husein said. “It is still the same.”
She said it could also lead to a separation of families.
“I could cry. It is heart-wrenching,” Husein said.