Narrowed travel ban could sow confusion in U.S. and abroad, experts say

[webfact]

Narrowed travel ban could sow confusion in U.S. and abroad, experts say

By Andrew Chung and Yeganeh Torbati

 

An international passenger arrives at Washington Dulles International Airport after the U.S. Supreme Court granted parts of the Trump administration's emergency request to put its travel ban into effect later in the week pending further judicial review, in Dulles, Virginia, U.S., June 26, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court's criteria for who can be barred from entering the United States under President Donald Trump's travel ban may confuse the U.S. officials overseas charged with implementing it and trigger a new round of lawsuits, experts said.

 

People with a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity" in the United States are spared from the temporary ban affecting people from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees that the justices on Monday allowed to go partially into effect.

 

"There's no precedent for something like this that I'm aware of," said Jeffrey Gorsky, a former legal adviser to the State Department's Visa Office, referring to the new "bona fide" standard.

 

Gorsky said the standard is likely to sow confusion among U.S. consular officials who have to make visa decisions and could require another court decision to determine what constitutes a connection to the United States sufficient to allow entry.

 

The Supreme Court agreed to decide the legality of Trump order in its next term, which begins in October. Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the court should have granted Trump's request to implement the travel ban in full while the legal fight continues.

 

"Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote, joined by two fellow conservative justices.

 

In Monday's ruling, the high court gave a few examples of connections that qualify. For individuals, a close family relationship is required.

 

Bona fide connections to entities, it said, must be "formal" and "documented." That would include students who have been admitted to a U.S. school and workers who have accepted an offer of employment from an American company, the court said. It noted that Trump's executive order already allowed for case-by-case waivers for people with connections to the country.

 

On the other hand, the justices said, relationships created for the purposes of evading the travel ban will not be considered valid. For instance, an immigration agency cannot add foreigners to client lists "and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

 

The March 6 order called for a 90-day ban on travellers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees to enable the government to implement stronger vetting procedures. Trump cited national security concerns as the reason for the order.

 

LITIGATION PREDICTED

 

Stephen Legomsky, chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under former President Barack Obama, said lawsuits could claim that a bona fide relationship was ignored.

 

While Legomsky said he believes the vast majority of cases will be clear cut, courts will have to determine whether visiting a close friend or taking part in a wedding could also qualify.

 

"In theory, you could say if somebody is coming for tourism and has made a reservation for a hotel, there's now a U.S. interest in bringing them to the United States. The hotel is a U.S. entity," Gorsky said.

 

Some lawyers also said the vagueness of the "bona fide" standard was license for the Trump administration to interpret it broadly.

 

"It's just like a green light to the government to do what it wants to do," said Kiyanoush Razaghi, a Maryland-based immigration attorney who deals with primarily Iranian clients. "Who is going to tell us what is the definition of 'bona fide relationship?'"

 

The difficult job of judging foreigners' claimed connections could land back in the lower courts in Maryland and Hawaii that had originally blocked Trump's travel ban, said Stephen Vladeck, a professor University of Texas School of Law.

 

"We could have dozens of these cases between now and September," Vladeck said, adding that the Supreme Court would not be likely to weigh in on them on a case-by-case basis.

 

David Martin, a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security official and now a professor at the University of Virginia, said the ruling was "carefully tailored" and should be manageable for officials to enact.

 

Part of the reason, Martin said, is the case-by-case waiver process that was already envisioned in the executive order.

 

"I think there will be some litigation over the extent of the reach of this bona fide relationship but I don't think it will be as burdensome as the dissenters suggest," Martin said.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung, Lawrence Hurley, Yeganeh Torbati, Daniel Levine and Mica Rosenberg; Editing by Sue Horton and Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-27

[tomwct]

Good Action! The Leftist Judges will have a bad week! Congrats to President Trump! Illegals down 58% and Refugees down 50%!

Making America Great Again One Day at a Time!

[simple1]

6 minutes ago, tomwct said:

Good Action! The Leftist Judges will have a bad week! Congrats to President Trump! Illegals down 58% and Refugees down 50%!

Making America Great Again One Day at a Time!

Facts instead of rhetoric at URL below.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/02/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

 

A cut of 50% refugee intake p.a. would entail a reduction in the number of Christian refugees; bet the evangelicals are not too happy.

[darksidedog]

Surely Donalds biggest ever (only) victory can't be bogged down by confusion and yet more legal challenges? Oh, the humanity.

[CutiePi]

Trump's policy is similar to Thailand's..."good guys in...bad guys out." He's such a great man.

[klauskunkel]

 

Welcome to the Divided States of America and the Wealth of Trump (you can look, but you can't touch)

[lostlink]

Winning!

[ELVIS123456]

"It's just like a green light to the government to do what it wants to do," said Kiyanoush Razaghi, a Maryland-based immigration attorney who deals with primarily Iranian clients. 

 

This sums up completely the liberal lunancy regarding the ban, and the abuse that is being done by the immigrants/refugee 'industry' to take advantage.

 

Just imagine - the Govt of a Country deciding what it can do when it comes to who can enter that Country. How dare they - my human rights .......bla bla bla

 

Winning more and more everyday 

 

[jb61]

no one has mentioned that the Supreme Court vote was 9-0 in favor of Trump.  Even obama's appointees voted in favor.

[Scott]

4 minutes ago, jb61 said:

no one has mentioned that the Supreme Court vote was 9-0 in favor of Trump.  Even obama's appointees voted in favor.

The Court has been put in the unenviable position of having to get into the middle of a internal situation that is generally handled by the White House and the Dept. of State.   The Court did not favor Trump; the Court simply approved some provisions that are rightfully in the Executive Branch.  

 

Had Trump not used an Executive Order and talked about a ban, he could have quietly worked with the Department of State to accomplish his goals.  

[MaxYakov]

 

[Redline]

13 hours ago, tomwct said:

Good Action! The Leftist Judges will have a bad week! Congrats to President Trump! Illegals down 58% and Refugees down 50%!

Making America Great Again One Day at a Time!

Add tourism to that list

[Redline]

13 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Surely Donalds biggest ever (only) victory can't be bogged down by confusion and yet more legal challenges? Oh, the humanity.

It's going to be a circus!

[Redline]

9 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

"It's just like a green light to the government to do what it wants to do," said Kiyanoush Razaghi, a Maryland-based immigration attorney who deals with primarily Iranian clients. 

 

This sums up completely the liberal lunancy regarding the ban, and the abuse that is being done by the immigrants/refugee 'industry' to take advantage.

 

Just imagine - the Govt of a Country deciding what it can do when it comes to who can enter that Country. How dare they - my human rights .......bla bla bla

 

Winning more and more everyday 

 

The USA doesn't even have enough qualified workers and has to import them.   Most Iranians are highly educated, and love the USA, by the way.  Thailand is looking for 4.0 (of which it lacks major components), and the USA wants to go backwards.  There are no training programs in the USA for the unemployed, underemployed, under-educated or unskilled.  They are trying to keep people uneducated to get votes, and give them some factory jobs that are not unionized, and will be obsolete due to AI and mechanization in 5 years.  No health insurance or pension for these folks when they lose their jobs.  The only business the USA has going for it, tech, is going to move jobs overseas because of an incompetent workforce and the inability to get qualified workers.  There are currently 6 million job openings, many can't be filled by Americans due to lack of skills.  Make America sick and stupid, go, go go!

[CutiePi]

On 6/27/2017 at 10:11 AM, ELVIS123456 said:

"It's just like a green light to the government to do what it wants to do," said Kiyanoush Razaghi, a Maryland-based immigration attorney who deals with primarily Iranian clients. 

 

This sums up completely the liberal lunancy regarding the ban, and the abuse that is being done by the immigrants/refugee 'industry' to take advantage.

 

Just imagine - the Govt of a Country deciding what it can do when it comes to who can enter that Country. How dare they - my human rights .......bla bla bla

 

Winning more and more everyday 

 

I'm already bored!

[mrwebb8825]

On 6/27/2017 at 8:11 PM, Redline said:

The only business the USA has going for it, tech, is going to move jobs overseas because of an incompetent workforce and the inability to get qualified workers.  There are currently 6 million job openings, many can't be filled by Americans due to lack of skills.  Make America sick and stupid, go, go go!

Sure would like to know where you find your fake news:

"The U.S. technology industry added nearly 200,000 net jobs in 2015 and now employs more than 6.7 million people, according to Cyberstates 2016: The Definitive State-by-State Analysis of the U.S. Tech Industry published by the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA)."

 

Seems a far cry from 6,000,000,000 tech job openings you've claimed.

 

They COULD start their own training programs. That way they could have people trained the way they want their employees to be, but hey, why invest in your own country and your own people when you could save big money by moving overseas. Oh Wait! By moving overseas they would then be charged huge tarrifs to import their goods back to where they should have been made in the 1st place.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Sure would like to know where you find your fake news:

"The U.S. technology industry added nearly 200,000 net jobs in 2015 and now employs more than 6.7 million people, according to Cyberstates 2016: The Definitive State-by-State Analysis of the U.S. Tech Industry published by the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA)."

 

Seems a far cry from 6,000,000,000 tech job openings you've claimed.

 

They COULD start their own training programs. That way they could have people trained the way they want their employees to be, but hey, why invest in your own country and your own people when you could save big money by moving overseas. Oh Wait! By moving overseas they would then be charged huge tarrifs to import their goods back to where they should have been made in the 1st place.

The poster would have been referencing total US job opening. As of 04/2017 there were 6.044 million.

 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t01.htm

 

 

[mrwebb8825]

20 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The poster would have been referencing total US job opening. As of 04/2017 there were 6.044 million.

 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t01.htm

 

 

He also claimed they couldn't be filled due to lack of skills. Your link includes car wash jobs, McDonald's, parking attendants, etc.

He claimed it was why the tech companies were going to leave.

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

He also claimed they couldn't be filled due to lack of skills. Your link includes car wash jobs, McDonald's, parking attendants, etc.

He claimed it was why the tech companies were going to leave.

You're being way to literal, think out of the square

[mrwebb8825]

30 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You're being way to literal, think out of the square

Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking in broad spectrums, out of 6,000,000 job openings currently in the states I would wager that nearly 5,500,000 offer on the job training.

Edited June 29, 2017 by mrwebb8825

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking in broad spectrums, out of 6,000,000,000 job openings currently in the states I would wager that nearly 5,500,000,000 offer on the job training.

try slowing down on your keyboard keying

[mrwebb8825]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

try slowing down on your keyboard keying

there, fixed it just for you. :)

[Redline]

8 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Sure would like to know where you find your fake news:

"The U.S. technology industry added nearly 200,000 net jobs in 2015 and now employs more than 6.7 million people, according to Cyberstates 2016: The Definitive State-by-State Analysis of the U.S. Tech Industry published by the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA)."

 

Seems a far cry from 6,000,000,000 tech job openings you've claimed.

 

They COULD start their own training programs. That way they could have people trained the way they want their employees to be, but hey, why invest in your own country and your own people when you could save big money by moving overseas. Oh Wait! By moving overseas they would then be charged huge tarrifs to import their goods back to where they should have been made in the 1st place.

Not 6 million tech jobs silly.  6 million job openings, many in the tech fields.  You wrote 6 billion!  You have failed

[MaxYakov]

1 hour ago, Redline said:

Not 6 million tech jobs silly.  6 million job openings, many in the tech fields.  You wrote 6 billion!  You have failed

Make him an offer!