webfact Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Trump says he will unveil overhauled immigration order next week By Ayesha Rascoe and Dan Levine REUTERS U.S. President Donald Trump takes questions during a news conference at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 16, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he will issue a new executive order to replace his controversial directive suspending travel to the United States by citizens of seven mostly Muslim countries. At a White House news conference on Thursday, Trump said the new order would seek to address concerns raised by federal appeals court judges, who temporarily blocked his original travel ban. "The new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision," Trump said, adding: "We had a bad court." Trump gave no details about the replacement order. Legal experts said a new directive would have a better chance of withstanding courtroom scrutiny if it covered some non-Muslim countries and exempted non-citizen immigrants living in the U.S. legally. The original order, issued on Jan. 27, triggered chaos at some U.S. and overseas airports, led to international protests, complaints from U.S. businesses and drew more than a dozen legal challenges. In a court filing on Thursday, the Justice Department asked for a pause in proceedings before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with a federal court in Washington state to suspend the travel ban, while litigation over its legality according to the U.S. Constitution played out. The Justice Department asked the court to vacate that ruling once the administration has rescinded its original order and issued a new one. The ban has been deeply divisive in the United States, with a Reuters/Ipsos poll indicating about half of Americans supported it shortly after the order took effect. LEGAL UNCERTAINTY Trump’s decision to issue a new directive plunges court proceedings over his earlier order into uncertainty. Litigants around the country said they will carefully examine any new policy to see if it raises similar constitutional issues and will continue to pursue legal action if necessary. Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who filed the case that produced the 9th Circuit ruling, claimed victory on Thursday. “Today’s court filing by the federal government recognises the obvious - the president’s current executive order violates the Constitution,” Ferguson said, in a statement. “President Trump could have sought review of this flawed order in the Supreme Court but declined to face yet another defeat.” Trump has said travel limitations are necessary to protect the United States from attacks by Islamist militants. His original order barred people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days. Refugees were banned for 120 days, except those from Syria, who were banned indefinitely. Trump said on Thursday that the widely criticized rollout had been "very smooth" and once again blamed the court for "a bad decision." The Justice Department court filing on Thursday said Trump's order would be "substantially revised" but provided no more details than the president did at his press conference. Last week an congressional aide who asked not to be identified told Reuters that Trump might rewrite the original order to explicitly exclude green card holders, who have legal permission to live and work in the United States. Stephen Griffin, a professor of constitutional law at Tulane University, said adding non-Muslim countries could also help a new order withstand accusations that it discriminates based on religion. Given that the administration already identified the seven Muslim-majority countries as a threat, he said, it would be unlikely to remove any of those. "I'd speculate they would add to the list, as opposed to walk it back," he said. (Additional reporting by Kristina Cooke in San Francisco; Editing by Caren Bohan and Bill Rigby) -- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) Banks' 1st bill would inspect social media postings of visa applicants The first bill introduced by freshman Rep. Jim Banks, R-3rd, would require the Department of Homeland Security to review the social media activity of all foreign citizens seeking visas to enter the United States. Banks announced Thursday he is introducing the Visa Investigation and Social Media Act of 2017, or VISA Act, in an attempt the strengthen the vetting process for immigration and travel visa applicants. Homeland Security officials would be required to review all "publicly available social media activity" by visa applicants, such as Twitter messages, Facebook posts and photos, and YouTube videos, Banks said in a statement. http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/indiana/Banks--1st-bill-would-inspect-social-media-postings-of-visa-applicants Edited February 17, 2017 by mtls2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 "We had a bad court." He's undermining one of the finest institutions we have. An independent and fair judiciary. This man is out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailand Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 So if you don"t use social media you could also be banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintLouisBlues Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 1 minute ago, Thailand said: So if you don"t use social media you could also be banned? I understand that visa-exempt visitors to the US are already "encouraged" to detail their social media affiliations; it is after all where Thai Immigration got the idea for their own questionnaire, more honored in the breech than the observance https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/homeland-security-social-media-border-protection.html?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Trumps news conference link. Have a stiff drink first. Its the "they love me" Trump show. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/16/donald-trump-press-conference-media-criticism-not-funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulldozer Dawn Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Thailand said: So if you don"t use social media you could also be banned? The mainstream media view Trump as their mortal enemy because he is a harbinger of change. Whenever possible, he bypasses the MSM in favour of using social media. The war the MSM have declared on Trump is not about sovereignty, morality or religion. It is about their survival: Donald Trump is Already at War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klauskunkel Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Quote Trump says he will unveil overhauled immigration order next week overhauled version: Trump says he will un-hijab overhauled immigration order next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 He is busy at present. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-familys-elaborate-lifestyle-a-logistical-nightmare--at-taxpayer-expense/2017/02/16/763cce8e-f2ce-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_campaign=pubexchange&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_term=.3b3bd30dfd31 Politic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulldozer Dawn Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, klauskunkel said: overhauled version: Trump says he will un-hijab overhauled immigration order next week Trump says (s)he will un-hijab overhauled immigration order next week. You forgot to address the gender bias. Edited February 17, 2017 by Bulldozer Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Vetting comprises getting as much information about the applicant as possible, so social media would be one of the means to get that information. But IMO legalising the means to obtain that information into certain requirements is a bad idea, it should be up to the agencies involved to determine which means should be used in which case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 20 minutes ago, Bulldozer Dawn said: The mainstream media view Trump as their mortal enemy because he is a harbinger of change. Whenever possible, he bypasses the MSM in favour of using social media. The war the MSM have declared on Trump is not about sovereignty, morality or religion. It is about their survival: Donald Trump is Already at War Hardly a credible source of news. That link is just a person's opinion. Trump is becoming an enemy of the MSM due to his vicious attacks on them. He's says some terrible things about the news and reporters. Mostly lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargeezr Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Trump was wrong in making restrictions for only 7 Muslim countries. His new ammended order should include them all, No exceptions. Geezer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunroaming Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 8 hours ago, webfact said: Trump gave no details about the replacement order. Legal experts said a new directive would have a better chance of withstanding courtroom scrutiny if it covered some non-Muslim countries and exempted non-citizen immigrants living in the U.S. legally. This will be the replacement order that he promised to release on Monday. The well oiled machine needs a little oil I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAMHERE Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 9 hours ago, craigt3365 said: "We had a bad court." He's undermining one of the finest institutions we have. An independent and fair judiciary. This man is out of order. 'Fair and independent judiciary' is an urban myth. Judges are the same people as any other, corruptable and often enough the bottom half of their graduating classes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bulldozer Dawn said: Trump says (s)he will un-hijab overhauled immigration order next week. You forgot to address the gender bias. Just because Trump only has two women in his cabinet, one who knows nothing or little about education and the other is married to Mitch McConnell why do you accuse him of gender bias pray tell. Trudeau on the other hand has a 50/50 cabinet you know the guy that Trump shook hands with Canada's leader and was on board Mr. Trudeau's equality for women bandwagon. Edited February 17, 2017 by elgordo38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunroaming Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Trump needs to put in a couple of non Muslim countries in his revised application, anywhere will do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saradoc1972 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 17 hours ago, craigt3365 said: "We had a bad court." He's undermining one of the finest institutions we have. An independent and fair judiciary. This man is out of order. No, he is just expressing a feeling that he has been unlucky before the court(s) that decided upon his matter, and that to his thinking he would have fared better before another court. I did law for a decade and it was not unusual talking with colleagues about how "that court was a catastrophe" when the judges seemed not to get your point or had legal views that were arguable but left you with no chance. Law is far from an exact science and you can get a court that sees things your way or run into what you then call "a bad court". Which does not mean the court is "bad" or inept, you just had the misfortune of getting your case sorted out by one with views unfavourable to your cause. So, e.g. Trump got a court here that held his list of banned states to be discriminating against Muslims, next one court argue it was not by dint of the absolute majority of predominantly Muslim states -such as Indonesia or Pakistan- not being on it, so it was to do with genuine security reasons. Could have happened that way, maybe it will in some two weeks from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 13 hours ago, IAMHERE said: 'Fair and independent judiciary' is an urban myth. Judges are the same people as any other, corruptable and often enough the bottom half of their graduating classes.. You've obviously never met a federal judge. They are some of the smartest minds in the world. Definitely not the same as other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 5 hours ago, Saradoc1972 said: No, he is just expressing a feeling that he has been unlucky before the court(s) that decided upon his matter, and that to his thinking he would have fared better before another court. I did law for a decade and it was not unusual talking with colleagues about how "that court was a catastrophe" when the judges seemed not to get your point or had legal views that were arguable but left you with no chance. Law is far from an exact science and you can get a court that sees things your way or run into what you then call "a bad court". Which does not mean the court is "bad" or inept, you just had the misfortune of getting your case sorted out by one with views unfavourable to your cause. So, e.g. Trump got a court here that held his list of banned states to be discriminating against Muslims, next one court argue it was not by dint of the absolute majority of predominantly Muslim states -such as Indonesia or Pakistan- not being on it, so it was to do with genuine security reasons. Could have happened that way, maybe it will in some two weeks from now. It wasn't just one judge, it was many. They can't all be wrong. Unless you are Trump and blame everybody else for your failures! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 But, but it was "yugely successful", and a "perfect rollout"? Color me confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 21 hours ago, Bulldozer Dawn said: The mainstream media view Trump as their mortal enemy because he is a harbinger of change. Whenever possible, he bypasses the MSM in favour of using social media. The war the MSM have declared on Trump is not about sovereignty, morality or religion. It is about their survival: Donald Trump is Already at War I have a suggestion. Barnum and Bailey retired from the circus business and I am sure all their equipment is up for sale at a good price. He could use this to bypass the MSM and take his message directly to the people. He could take weekends off and fly back to Vista De Largo and do a couple rounds of golf and then Air Force 1 back to his wherever he left off. Ivanka and her husband could run the White House in his absence a win win situation for all especially his loyal following. He at present is down to 38% in the opinion polls the worst ever of any president but we all know polls lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatawonderfulday Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 20 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said: Trump was wrong in making restrictions for only 7 Muslim countries. His new ammended order should include them all, No exceptions. Geezer Don't be stupid. It will never include Saudi Arabia as the US needs their oil. Oh nearly forgot, it was the Saudis, and their support, that killed more Americans on American soil than any other nation in US history ( apart from the British of course but the numbers are undocumented). The Russians may have helped Trump and his goofers into power but I suspect it was Saudi support under the radar that sponsored them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, mtls2005 said: But, but it was "yugely successful", and a "perfect rollout"? Color me confused. Its easy to figure out when you enter the US the immigration office will ask you "Do you truly honestly love the United States?" You say "Yes" and he says "Proceed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 Its easy to figure out when you enter the US the immigration office will ask you "Do you truly honestly love the United States?" You say "Yes" and he says "Proceed" I use a Global Entry kiosk, so no human contact. That said, they could always add additional questions on the screens I guess. Or during the application interview/renewal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 1 hour ago, whatawonderfulday said: Don't be stupid. It will never include Saudi Arabia as the US needs their oil. Oh nearly forgot, it was the Saudis, and their support, that killed more Americans on American soil than any other nation in US history ( apart from the British of course but the numbers are undocumented). The Russians may have helped Trump and his goofers into power but I suspect it was Saudi support under the radar that sponsored them. Only 11% of oil that US imports is from SA. The real reason for supporting them is the global economy. Disrupt that and every country will feel the pain. Big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatawonderfulday Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said: Only 11% of oil that US imports is from SA. The real reason for supporting them is the global economy. Disrupt that and every country will feel the pain. Big time. And 11% is a huge figure in real terms based on domestic consumption in the US hence my statement is absolutely relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 47 minutes ago, whatawonderfulday said: And 11% is a huge figure in real terms based on domestic consumption in the US hence my statement is absolutely relevant Saudia Arabia seems to be in trouble, in more ways than one: https://www.ft.com/content/5e8c1d52-f19f-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a Quote Saudi Arabia loses oil market share to rivals in key nations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caps Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 Sent from my iPhone whilst having a cold beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 On 2/17/2017 at 7:19 PM, IAMHERE said: 'Fair and independent judiciary' is an urban myth. Judges are the same people as any other, corruptable and often enough the bottom half of their graduating classes.. I'm sure you have evidence to back this up and aren't just airing your prejudicies. Could you provide that evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now