您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 国际 >> 正文

特朗普旅行禁令案:关键问题与解答

更新时间:2017-6-27 18:26:44 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Questions and Answers About the Travel Ban Case
特朗普旅行禁令案:关键问题与解答

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld some portions of President Trump’s revised travel ban on Monday, setting the stage for arguments on the case in October.

华盛顿——美国最高法院(Supreme Court)周一维持了特朗普总统修订后的入境禁令的部分内容,为10月各方就此案展开辩论创造了条件。

Here are some major questions the case presents:

以下是与此案相关的一些主要问题:

What did the court decide about President Trump’s travel ban?

最高法院对特朗普的入境禁令做出了怎样的裁决?

The court did two things: It agreed to evaluate the ban next term, and, in the meantime, the court overturned the decisions of lower courts, saying that Mr. Trump’s administration could enforce its immigration ban against certain people while it waited for the Supreme Court to hear arguments and decide the case.

最高法院做了两件事:同意在下一个庭期评估禁令,与此同时,推翻了下级法院的裁决,称特朗普政府在等候最高法院听取辩论并做出裁决期间,可以执行针对某些人的移民禁令。

Does that mean that the president can block everyone from coming from the six countries he identified as dangerous — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen?

这是否意味着特朗普总统可以禁止来自他认为危险的六个国家——伊朗、利比亚、索马里、苏丹、叙利亚和也门——的所有人入境?

No. The justices agreed with the appeals courts that certain people should be allowed to come to the United States, as long as they have what the court called “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

不是。大法官们与上诉法院的观点一致,认为应该允许某些人来美国,只要他们具备法院所说的“与美国境内某个人或实体存在真实关系的可信说法”。

Who would that be?

那些人会是谁?

That is likely to be subject to interpretation and litigation. The court detailed several categories of foreign nationals who should be allowed into the United States: 1) people with a “close familial relationship” to someone in the United States; 2) students admitted to a university in the United States; 3) workers who have accepted an offer of employment from a company in the United States; and 4) lecturers invited to speak to an American audience.

这可能取决于解释和诉讼。法院详细列出了应获准进入美国的几类外籍人士:1)与美国境内某人存在“亲密家庭关系”的人;2)美国大学录取的学生;3)美国公司雇佣的员工;4)受邀前往美国发表演讲者。

But who qualifies for each of those categories will be up to the administration, and individuals denied entry might challenge those decisions in the courts.

但谁符合这些类别将由联邦政府决定,被拒绝入境的个体可在法庭上挑战这些决定。

Who remains blocked from coming to the United States after the court’s ruling?

最高法院做出这一裁决后,哪些人依然被禁止进入美国?

The court basically said that foreign nationals with no “bona fide relationship” to the United States do not have the same rights and can be banned from entry. The justices wrote that the government’s authority to ban entry into the United States for national security reasons were “undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.”

最高法院基本上是说,和美国没有“真实关系”的外国人不享有同等的权利,可能会禁止入境。大法官们写道,政府出于国家安全的原因禁止入境的权力“在外籍人士和美国之间不存在关系时毫无疑问达到最大”。

What about refugees coming from places like Syria or other war-torn countries?

来自叙利亚或其他战乱国家的难民怎么办?

The court imposed the same rules for refugees as it did for those seeking entry from the six aforementioned countries. Refugees who already have some connection to the United States may not be summarily blocked from entry; those who have no prior connection to the United States may be blocked from entry.

最高法院对难民和试图入境的上述六国公民实行一样的规定。已同美国存在某种关系的难民,可能不会被立即禁止入境,之前和美国没有关系的难民可能会遭到禁止入境。

Are there still big questions?

是否还存在一些大问题?

Yes. The definition of a “bona fide relationship” is not clear yet, according to opponents of the ban. For example, if a vacationer has a reservation at a hotel in the United States, does that qualify as a “bona fide relationship?” That kind of question will not be known for sure until the government blocks people from coming and the cases are taken to the courts.

存在。据反对该禁令的人士称,“真实关系”的定义尚不清晰。比如,如果度假的人在美国的酒店预订了房间,这种情况是否符合“真实关系”?在政府禁止入境且案件被诉诸法庭之前,这种问题没有明确的答案。

What about Mr. Trump’s decision to limit the number of refugees admitted each year to 50,000 people?

特朗普把每年接收的难民人数限制在五万人的决定呢?

The court said that the administration’s limit of 50,000 refugees could not be used to arbitrarily restrict entry to a refugee who otherwise had a legitimate connection to the United States.

法院称,不可用联邦政府五万难民这个限制来随意禁止与美国有合法关系的难民入境。

When does this take effect?

裁决何时生效?

In a June 14 memorandum, Mr. Trump said that the relevant agencies would wait 72 hours to make any changes if a court gave the government the right to reimpose the ban. The memorandum said that the 72-hour waiting period would “ensure an orderly and proper implementation” of the changes. That would appear to prevent a repeat of the original travel ban, when travelers got stuck in limbo in airports around the United States.

在6月14日的备忘录中,特朗普说,如果法院裁定政府有权重新实施禁令,相关机构将等待72小时,以便进行调整。备忘录称,72小时的等待期将“确保有序、恰当地执行”相关调整。这似乎是为了防止重蹈最初的入境禁令的覆辙。当时,旅客被困在全美各地的机场,前途未卜。

Is this a win for Mr. Trump?

这是特朗普的胜利吗?

Yes, in part. Mr. Trump will be able to say that the Supreme Court slapped down the lower courts for going too far and reaffirmed the president’s power to control the nation’s borders. But the court’s ruling also underscores the view that Mr. Trump was overreaching when he banned all travel into the United States by certain refugees and foreign nationals from six countries. Had the administration written the original travel ban along the lines of the court’s ruling, it might not have encountered such fierce political and legal resistance.

在一定程度上是。特朗普可以说最高法院因为下级法院做得太过分而予以严厉责备,并重申了总统控制美国边界的权力。但最高法院的裁决也强调了特朗普完全禁止来自上述六国的某些难民和外国人入境的观点过头了。如果联邦政府在制定最初的入境禁令时采用了最高法院裁决中的语句,也许就不会遭到这么强烈的政治和法律抵制。

Did all of the court’s justices agree with the ruling?

最高法院的所有大法官都同意该裁决吗?

No. The ruling was per curiam, meaning that it was the decision of the court, acting collectively as a unit. But three of the court’s most conservative members — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas — offered a dissent, saying they would have allowed the president’s travel ban to take effect fully, without regard to a foreign national’s connection to the United States.

不是的。该裁决是法庭意见,这意味着它是法庭作为一个整体共同做出的决定。但最高法院三位最保守的大法官——尼尔·M·戈萨奇(Neil M. Gorsuch)、小塞缪尔·A·阿利托(Samuel A. Alito Jr.)和克拉伦斯·托马斯(Clarence Thomas)大法官——提出了异议,表示他们允许总统的入境禁令全面生效,而不管外国人与美国是否存在关系。

Is this a final ruling, then?

那么这是最终裁决吗?

Not yet. The court’s ruling on the travel ban only applies for the period of time between now and when the justices make a final ruling, which might not come until late fall. The court agreed to hear arguments in the case in its next term, which begins in October. At that time, the court could endorse its current view of the travel ban or it could do something different.

还不是。最高法院对入境禁令的裁决仅适用于现在到大法官们做出最终裁决这段时间。最终裁决也许要等到深秋。最高法院同意在下个庭期听取此案中各方的观点。届时,最高法院可能支持它当前对入境禁令的观点,也可能做出不同的选择。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表