Must Read Trump signs revised travel ban in bid to see off legal challenges

[webfact]

Trump signs revised travel ban in bid to see off legal challenges

By Steve Holland and Julia Edwards Ainsley

REUTERS

 

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly (L), Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (C) and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, deliver remarks on issues related to visas and travel after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a new travel ban order in Washington, U.S., March 6, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump signed a revised executive order on Monday banning citizens from six Muslim-majority nations from travelling to the United States but removing Iraq from the list, after his controversial first attempt was blocked in the courts.

 

The new order, which takes effect on March 16, keeps a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It applies only to new visa applicants, meaning some 60,000 people whose visas were revoked under the previous order will now be permitted to enter.

 

Immigration advocates said the new ban still discriminated against Muslims and failed to address some of their key concerns with the previous order. Legal experts said it would, however, be harder to challenge because it affects fewer people living in the United States and allows more exemptions to protect them.

 

Trump, who first proposed a temporary travel ban on Muslims during his presidential campaign last year, had said his original Jan. 27 executive order was a national security measure meant to head off attacks by Islamist militants.

 

It sparked chaos and protests at airports, where visa holders were detained and later deported back to their home countries. It also drew criticism from targeted countries, Western allies and some of America's leading corporations before a U.S. judge suspended it on Feb. 3.

 

"As threats to our security continue to evolve and change, common sense dictates that we continually re-evaluate and reassess the systems we rely upon to protect our country," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters after Trump signed the new order.

 

PELOSI: BAN STILL IMMORAL

 

Democrats, a minority in Congress, quickly signalled fierce opposition to what they called a discriminatory ban.

 

"The Trump administration’s repackaging has done nothing to change the immoral, unconstitutional and dangerous goals of their Muslim and refugee ban," House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

 

Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, a civil rights group in Washington, said the Trump administration had "doubled down on anti-Muslim bigotry.

 

"It’s crystal clear this is a Muslim ban," she told reporters on a conference call.

 

But some Republicans who had been critical of Trump's original order were more positive on the new one.

 

Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he was "very encouraged" by the approach and pleased that Iraq was removed from the list.

 

Trump's original ban resulted in more than two dozen lawsuits in U.S. courts. The Justice Department estimated 60,000 people had their visas revoked by the first order but senior administration officials said on Monday those visas were now valid again for entry into the United States.

 

"By rescinding his earlier executive order, President Trump makes one thing perfectly clear: his original travel ban was indefensible — legally, constitutionally and morally," said Attorney General Bob Ferguson of Washington state, which succeeded in having the previous ban suspended.

 

His office would likely decide this week on whether to proceed with litigation over Trump's new executive order, he said, and would consult with state universities and businesses to understand what harm they may suffer due to the new order.

 

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he expected the revised order to have the same uphill battle in the courts as the original version.

 

"A watered down ban is still a ban," he said in a statement. "Despite the administration's changes, this dangerous executive order makes us less safe, not more, it is mean-spirited, and un-American. It must be repealed."

 

HARDER TO CHALLENGE

 

But the fact the ban affects fewer people already in the United States means it will be more difficult for opponents to find plaintiffs who have been harmed by the order and thus have legal standing to challenge it, legal experts say.

 

"They dotted their I's and crossed their T's in trying to anticipate what litigation might result," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell Law School professor.

 

The revised order means that tens of thousands of legal permanent U.S. residents - or green card holders - from the listed countries will no longer be affected.

 

The original order barred travellers from the seven nations from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. Refugees from Syria were to be banned indefinitely but under the new order they are not given separate treatment.

 

Iraq was taken off the banned list because the Iraqi government has imposed new vetting procedures, such as heightened visa screening and data sharing, and because of its work with the United States in countering Islamic State militants, a senior White House official said.

 

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who along with several other senior Cabinet members had lobbied for Iraq's removal, was consulted on the new order and the updated version "does reflect his inputs," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said.

 

Thousands of Iraqis have fought alongside U.S. troops for years or worked as translators since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Many have resettled in the United States after being threatened for working with U.S. troops.

 

Refugees "in transit" and already approved would be able to travel to the United States under the new order.

 

"There’s going to be a very orderly process," a senior official from the Department of Homeland Security said. "You should not see any chaos so to speak, or alleged chaos at airports. There aren’t going to be folks stopped tonight from coming into the country because of this executive order."

 

(Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle, Doina Chiacu, Tim Ahmann and Idrees Ali in Washington, Mica Rosenberg in New York and Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Bill Trott and Nick Tattersall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-07

[stevenl]

Some of the mistakes in the previous order have been corrected, but there seem to be some serious issues with this one as well.

sent using Tapatalk

[mike324]

another u-turn by president trump

[Berkshire]

A Muslim ban by any other name....

 

But seriously, is this thing really going to make Americans safer?  Or is Trump just doing it to be able to tell his nutty supporters that he kept his campaign promise?  Well, sort of kept his promise.

[spidermike007]

Had he, and the dark lord Bannon had the vision (he is an advisor after all) to exclude those who had already gone through extreme vetting (yes, it has been in place for 15 years now, despite what the deflector in chief says) and possessed green cards, none of this fiasco would have taken place. But, he continues to listen to bad advice, and extremist sentiment, and gets overwhelmed when there is a outcry over his dumb policy. Rumor has it that he went absolutely ballistic on his staff the past few days, as they are not able to make this petty Russia thing go away. Sorry, but when you commit near treason, and put a country that has no goodwill toward the American people, ahead of the American people, some people are going to get angry, and will want to get to the bottom of this mess you have created. No amount of lying, fabrication, deflection, or creative hyperbole is going to make this thing go away. Some of us are watching with a great deal of amusement. 

[Credo]

This reminds me of my intro to Composition Course in University.   About 3/4 of the students got their first composition back and the professor said, "Here's how it works; you are not in High School, you will use proper grammar and you will spell correctly and your thoughts will be presented coherently and rationally." 

 

We have a President who hasn't even made it to the High School level yet.   

[Tchooptip]

1 hour ago, mike324 said:

another u-turn by president trump

Yes some will call him U-Trump now.

[sujoop]

Anything to keep his mostly under-educated, low-info, and afraid of their own shadows fan base diverted and pleased with a revised dog-whistle Muslim ban. More 'shiny objects' to please and divert to come...

 

Meanwhile, back in reality land:

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by sujoop

[Srikcir]

Clearly the new ban continues to fail the logic that Muslims from any country will enter the US as radicalized jihadists intent on immediately causing violence. Data shows that it has been instead the radicalization of Muslims after entry (usually years) into the US or US born citizens of Muslim faith through largely internet contact that has led to violence and that is not addressed by the new ban.

 

But it isn't for the courts to decide the effectiveness of a Presidential policy so long as it is not unconstitutional. The US electorate and US Congress will ultimately decide the President's fate for ineffective, flawed or failed policies. The new order references countries that have state-supported terrorism (ie., Iran in Syria, Yemen, Lebabon), failed states that cannot allegedly deliver US-level vetting (Libya, Yemen) and no entry priority to non-Muslim faiths. That seems to avoid unconstitutionality.

 

But on a US state-by-state basis individual state attorney generals must decide if they still have specific cases (ie., Iranian students accepted to state universities who do not yet hold a student visa or offers of employment with Microsoft/Boeing who do not yet fold an employment visa) wherein there will be immediate harm to the state. I say "immediate" as Obama's extreme vetting process for Trump's banned countries has been 1-2 years. Unless someone from a banned country is for example currently waiting 18 months for vetting and is within 30 days of receiving a visa, a state would find it a difficult argument for immediate harm.

 

According to Washington State's AG, Trump's revised ban is a major capitulation to Washington State's lawsuit. State AG's might better declare victory for their constituents and let Trump's new ban take its course without further use of state resources. (PS: US state AG's are directly elected by state voters)

[mike324]

Curbing gun ownership loopholes will save more lives, cost less and have a bigger impact on crime and death of american citizens. Note I say loopholes - not taking guns away for those who can't read properly and keep on thinking DEMS want to take guns away from citizens.

[dunroaming]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

The new order, which takes effect on March 16, keeps a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It applies only to new visa applicants, meaning some 60,000 people whose visas were revoked under the previous order will now be permitted to enter.

I need a little help with this one.  If I remember correctly the original ban was to be actioned immediately to stop any potential terrorists from entering the USA.  The ban was for 90 days to prevent these so called terrorists slipping in before more stringent vetting could be put in place.  The ban was lifted on the 3rd February.  The new ban will start on 16th March and one assumes for the same reasons as the last one.  However this time anyone who had their visas revoked before will now be allowed in.

 

Two points spring to mind.  First any potential terrorists would have slipped in between 3rd of February and today and if not they know they have until 16th March to do so.  Secondly, given that the original ban was for 90 days for the border security services to clamp down and strengthen the vetting process (or as Trump said "find out what the hell is going on"), then why do they still need 90 days to do so?  Have they just been sitting on their hands in the meantime.

 

What is truly staggering is that Trump cannot see the stupidity of this.

[darksidedog]

6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Had he, and the dark lord Bannon had the vision (he is an advisor after all) to exclude those who had already gone through extreme vetting (yes, it has been in place for 15 years now, despite what the deflector in chief says) and possessed green cards, none of this fiasco would have taken place. But, he continues to listen to bad advice, and extremist sentiment, and gets overwhelmed when there is a outcry over his dumb policy. Rumor has it that he went absolutely ballistic on his staff the past few days, as they are not able to make this petty Russia thing go away. Sorry, but when you commit near treason, and put a country that has no goodwill toward the American people, ahead of the American people, some people are going to get angry, and will want to get to the bottom of this mess you have created. No amount of lying, fabrication, deflection, or creative hyperbole is going to make this thing go away. Some of us are watching with a great deal of amusement. 

I agree with that entirely, though I am watching with a great deal of concern. The man is funny, but dangerous.

[Banana7]

I see in Section 10 of the executive order that now the USA expects Visa Validity Reciprocity. Specifically: If another country does not treat United States nationals seeking non-immigrant visas in a truly reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by that foreign country, to the extent practicable.

 

You can see the entire executive order here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

 

I know some Thai have received 10 year visas to USA. I wonder if Thailand will grant 10 year visas to Americans or will USA rollback visas for Thais to 1 year matching Thailand immigration?

 

I wish other western countries establish Visa Validity Reciprocity with Thailand. This one year retirement visa/extensions is just ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Banana7

[stevenl]

I see in Section 10 of the executive order that now the USA expects Visa Validity Reciprocity. Specifically: If another country does not treat United States nationals seeking non-immigrant visas in a truly reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by that foreign country, to the extent practicable.
 
You can see the entire executive order here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
 
I know some Thai have received 10 year visas to USA. I wonder if Thailand will grant 10 year visas to Americans or will USA rollback visas for Thais to 1 year matching Thailand immigration?
 
I wish other western countries establish Visa Validity Reciprocity with Thailand. This one year retirement visa/extensions is just ridiculous.
 
 
 
 

So Thai will get visa exempt entry in the US?

sent using Tapatalk

[joecoolfrog]

9 hours ago, sujoop said:

Anything to keep his mostly under-educated, low-info, and afraid of their own shadows fan base diverted and pleased with a revised dog-whistle Muslim ban. More 'shiny objects' to please and divert to come...

 

Meanwhile, back in reality land:

 

Damn those Islamist death beds !

[attrayant]

Problem is, in whatever form this ban takes and no matter how many times it rises from the dead, it's always going to be read in the context of Trump's own words, that he wants nothing less than:

 

Quote

a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

 

 

[Credo]

Based on the new executive order are we to assume that he has 'figured out what in the hell is going on'?

[Srikcir]

There are nuances in the new ban order that could effectively ban Iraqi's even with the country being removed from the ban. In the case of Iraqi's who currently hold visas, the State Department can simply refuse (albeit with excuses) to renew those visas or cease the process that would grant issuance of more permanent visas or path to citizenship. Thus, eventually current Iraqi visa holders will be banned from the US - fulfilling a Muslim ban.

 

 

[Rhys]

..somebody forgot to take his phone away... what a piece of work... sad that he gives ny a bad name..

 

[Langsuan Man]

[spidermike007]

19 hours ago, Banana7 said:

I see in Section 10 of the executive order that now the USA expects Visa Validity Reciprocity. Specifically: If another country does not treat United States nationals seeking non-immigrant visas in a truly reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by that foreign country, to the extent practicable.

 

You can see the entire executive order here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

 

I know some Thai have received 10 year visas to USA. I wonder if Thailand will grant 10 year visas to Americans or will USA rollback visas for Thais to 1 year matching Thailand immigration?

 

I wish other western countries establish Visa Validity Reciprocity with Thailand. This one year retirement visa/extensions is just ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

I sure hope not. I got a multiple entry, ten year US visa for my Thai wife, and it was not an easy task. One should expect a lack of progress here. It is one of the least progressive nations on earth, with some of the least talented, intelligent, effective, competent, creative, and forward thinking leaders on the planet. You can call the US anything you want to call it, but it is at least a moderately progressive nation, with at least some intelligent people running the country. Well, at least that used to be the case. LOL.

Edited March 8, 2017 by spidermike007

[Banana7]

20 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

I sure hope not. I got a multiple entry, ten year US visa for my Thai wife, and it was not an easy task. One should expect a lack of progress here. It is one of the least progressive nations on earth, with some of the least talented, intelligent, effective, competent, creative, and forward thinking leaders on the planet. You can call the US anything you want to call it, but it is at least a moderately progressive nation, with at least some intelligent people running the country. Well, at least that used to be the case. LOL.

Your wife will have to report to immigration every 90 days, and apply for an extension of stay every year, show verifiable proof of assets, in her name, located in USA or income to adequately support herself, without your assets or your income, notify immigration within 24 hours of where she is staying, etc. etc.. If she goes for a trip and stays in a hotel overnight, she'll have to report personally to the nearest immigration office or police station. Just like the Americans have to do now in Thailand.

 

Its very simple - but now you understand how ridiculous is the Thai immigration rules for Americans living in Thailand.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Banana7

[Banana7]

22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

I sure hope not. I got a multiple entry, ten year US visa for my Thai wife, and it was not an easy task. One should expect a lack of progress here. It is one of the least progressive nations on earth, with some of the least talented, intelligent, effective, competent, creative, and forward thinking leaders on the planet. You can call the US anything you want to call it, but it is at least a moderately progressive nation, with at least some intelligent people running the country. Well, at least that used to be the case. LOL.

The level of adequate financial capacity for a Thai staying in USA should be calculated based on the gross national income (GNI) of the country.

 

In 2015 Thailand GNI is USD$5720 and USA GNI is USD$55,980. Since Thailand requires a foreigner to have 800k baht, which is about USD$22,857 (at USD=35b), that equates to about 400% of Thailand GNI. So a Thai staying in USA long-term should have assets in USA of 400% of USA GNI, so that equates to about USD$223K. Of course that requirement will be cut 50% if the Thai is your spouse, only USD$111,000.

 

Now we are beginning to see the fairness of Thailand immigration standards imposed on foreigners.

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Banana7

[spidermike007]

5 hours ago, Banana7 said:

Your wife will have to report to immigration every 90 days, and apply for an extension of stay every year, show verifiable proof of assets, in her name, located in USA or income to adequately support herself, without your assets or your income, notify immigration within 24 hours of where she is staying, etc. etc.. If she goes for a trip and stays in a hotel overnight, she'll have to report personally to the nearest immigration office or police station. Just like the Americans have to do now in Thailand.

 

Its very simple - but now you understand how ridiculous is the Thai immigration rules for Americans living in Thailand.

 

 

 

 

 

I completely agree with you. As I stated previously: One should expect a lack of progress here. It is one of the least progressive nations on earth, with some of the least talented, intelligent, effective, competent, creative, and forward thinking leaders on the planet. You can call the US anything you want to call it, but it is at least a moderately progressive nation, with at least some intelligent people running the country. Well, at least that used to be the case. LOL.

 

So, I expect the authorities here to be inane, and silly, and to come up with policy completely lacking in vision, merit, or reason. It is a severe xenophobia that propels alot of these childish laws. We should be given honorary status for contributing far more to the local economy that most Thais. Would that ever happen? Of course not. Again, where is the vision? Not here. 

[webfact]

U.S. judge allows Hawaii to challenge Trump's new travel ban

By Mica Rosenberg and Dan Levine

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with U.S. House Deputy Whip team at the East room of the White House in Washington, U.S. March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

(Reuters) - The state of Hawaii can sue over President Donald Trump's new executive order temporarily banning the entry of refugees and travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

 

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/972771-us-judge-allows hawaii to-challenge-trumps-new-travel-ban/

[craigt3365]

More time and money wasted on something the US doesn't really need.  Trump: please focus on issues more important to the US and the world.  This isn't one of them.