Trump fires attorney-general for refusing to enforce travel ban

President Donald Trump has  fired Sally Yates, acting attorney-general of the US, for refusing to enforce his refugee order “designed to protect” the citizens of the country.

Trump’s order temporarily banned immigration from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia and indefinitely stopped Syrian refugees from coming to the United States.

Yates sack came after she told justice department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees.

“Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as acting attorney general until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons,” White House said in a statement .

“Yates has betrayed the Department of justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.

“This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”

The statement described Yates as an “Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration”.

“It is time to get serious about protecting our country,” the statement read.

“Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”

Yates, in her directive refusing to enforce the presidential order wrote: “My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.

“In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.

“At present, I am not convinced that the defence of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”