Widespread uncertainty as U.S. travel ban start looms

[webfact]

Widespread uncertainty as U.S. travel ban start looms

By Mica Rosenberg, Andrew Chung and Yeganeh Torbati

 

FILE PHOTO: A Saudi family embraces as members arrive 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., on June 26, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - One day before President Donald Trump's temporary ban on all refugees and travellers from six predominantly Muslim countries is scheduled to take effect, there is still widespread uncertainty about how the administration will implement it.

 

The confusion follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Monday that allowed the long-delayed executive order to take effect, but significantly narrowed its scope. It exempted travellers and refugees who have a "bona fide relationship" with a person or entity in the United States.

 

As of Wednesday, the main federal departments and agencies responsible for implementing the ban had not issued official legal guidance to staff in the field or to the public. Among the questions to be resolved are what qualifies as a "bona fide" connection and how pending and future visa and refugee applications will be handled during the period of the ban.

 

Many immigrant and refugee agencies say they need more details in order to prepare their clients for what to expect.

 

Without guidance from the administration, "it’s easy to game out a number of ways this could go off the rails," said Johnathan Smith, legal director of legal advocacy group Muslim Advocates.

 

The U.S. State Department on Tuesday said it was waiting for legal guidance from attorneys at the Department of Justice.

 

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said on Wednesday he told DHS employees he wants to tread carefully in implementing the order.

 

“I  told my folks I didn’t want to come anywhere near close to getting crosswise with the court. I think that’s the right way to be a public servant,” Kelly said, adding that he expects the government will win the case when it is heard this fall.

 

David Lapan, a DHS spokesman, said additional information will be released on Thursday, the day the ban is to start. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

 

The ban's looming enforcement against nationals of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen stirred anger and confusion in parts of the Middle East on Wednesday, with would-be visitors worried about their travel plans and their futures.

 

Kiyanoush Razaghi, an immigration attorney in Maryland with primarily Iranian clients, said he has received a flurry of messages from Iranians wondering what it would mean for their plans to enter the United States.

 

The Supreme Court specifically mentioned family ties and job or university offers as reasons to exempt someone from the ban, but did not mention such issues as business or professional conference travel.

 

Airlines in the region said they had not received a directive from the United States, and there were few people at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai, where there is normally a line out the door of people waiting to process visa applications.

 

The State Department has said it does not plan to cancel previously scheduled visa appointments for residents of the six countries.

 

Trump issued the ban in a March 6 executive order, saying it was a temporary measure needed to allow the administration to review the vetting process for immigrants from those countries. Travel from the six countries was banned for 90 days and for all refugees for 120 days.

 

But lower courts in Maryland and Hawaii blocked the order, saying it was a pretext for targeting Muslims and violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on favouring one religion over another. The Supreme Court then narrowed the scope of the lower court injunctions.

 

REFUGEES IN LIMBO

 

Refugee advocates are struggling to understand what the court ruling will mean to applicants in the pipeline.

 

The State Department on Tuesday said the United States has already admitted about 49,000 refugees for the fiscal year ending in September, while Trump's executive order set a cap of 50,000.

 

The high court's decision allowed the cap take effect, but only against those who do not have a “bona fide” connection.

 

Refugee resettlement agencies are poised to argue that their relationships with individual refugees, which entail coordination with the U.S. government, sometimes over the course of years, meets the Supreme Court's standard.

 

If the government accepts that view, it would likely mean that every refugee already cleared for resettlement would be eligible to enter the United States.

 

A narrower approach limiting entry only to refugees with U.S. family members would shut out some of the most vulnerable populations, said Eleanor Acer, from the organization Human Rights First.

 

Many refugees being resettled in the United States already have U.S. ties, but those that do not include children in need of urgent medical care and women who are victims of human trafficking, she said.

 

The State Department has told refugee resettlement partners abroad that they should proceed with resettlement of refugees scheduled to travel to the United States through July 6.

 

(Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley and David Shepardson)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-29

[Jonnapat]

After many lower courts blockingTrump's ban, looks like the US Supreme Court is going to be politically motivated.

[sawadeeken]

I might advocate continuing to allow Children and Single Women as immigrants, but close the doors to Muslim Men. They are the ones causing all the trouble all over the free world......

Think it over.......... It would cut the percentages drastically...........

[ddavidovsky]

" Many immigrant and refugee agencies say they need more details in order to prepare their clients for what to expect. "

 

Tell them they can't come.

There you go.

[hawker9000]

15 hours ago, sawadeeken said:

I might advocate continuing to allow Children and Single Women as immigrants, but close the doors to Muslim Men. They are the ones causing all the trouble all over the free world......

Think it over.......... It would cut the percentages drastically...........

YOU think it over!  Women and children HAVE been used as suicide bombers.  Tell the rabid Islamists that men will be excluded, but women & children still be allowed, and what do you REALLY think will be the consequence?  Again, you're the one who needs to think a little bit more.

 

That which "cuts the percentages drastically ............"  is unfortunately and incredibly a matter of the politically correct yet again trumping the patently obvious.

 

And once again we owe our thanks to that great religion of peace.

[observer90210]

17 hours ago, sawadeeken said:

I might advocate continuing to allow Children and Single Women as immigrants, but close the doors to Muslim Men. They are the ones causing all the trouble all over the free world......

Think it over.......... It would cut the percentages drastically...........

How can a sane mind advocate such ideas, dear fellow?  ... amazing!....And how would you go about to prevent terrorist acts from the high number of westerners who have joined terrorist groups thus who would not fall under your senseless biased racial profiling?

Edited June 29, 2017 by observer90210

[Srikcir]

On 6/29/2017 at 6:23 AM, webfact said:

It exempted travellers and refugees who have a "bona fide relationship" with a person or entity in the United States.

 

On 6/29/2017 at 6:23 AM, webfact said:

"it’s easy to game out a number of ways this could go off the rails,"

Might become a big market for fake job offers, familial letters of reference, etc.

Supreme Court says includes lecturers invited to speak to American audiences. Going to be a lot of fake or contrived lecturer invitations?

What is an entity? A thing with distinct and independent existence, -a being, creature, individual, organism, life form, a corporation.  Could such entity be a pet dog?

On 6/29/2017 at 6:23 AM, webfact said:

"bona fide relationship"

"Fiancées, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and other extended family members are not considered to have 'close familial ties,' under the Trump administration's interpretation of the Supreme Court's order." http://www.businessinsider.com/us-travel-ban-exemptions-supreme-court-bona-fide-relationship-2017-6

So Trump has no familial ties to his son-in-law Kushner nor Barron to his grandparents?

Going to be a lot of lawsuits that will just continue critical press for the Trump administration.

 

[sawadeeken]

16 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

 

On 6/29/2017 at 10:45 AM, sawadeeken said:

I might advocate continuing to allow Children and Single Women as immigrants, but close the doors to Muslim Men. They are the ones causing all the trouble all over the free world......

Think it over.......... It would cut the percentages drastically...........

YOU think it over!  Women and children HAVE been used as suicide bombers.  Tell the rabid Islamists that men will be excluded, but women & children still be allowed, and what do you REALLY think will be the consequence?  Again, you're the one who needs to think a little bit more.

 

That which "cuts the percentages drastically ............"  is unfortunately and incredibly a matter of the politically correct yet again trumping the patently obvious.

 

And once again we owe our thanks to that great religion of peace.

 

For you and observer90210..........

NO WAY did I overlook the women and maybe kids as having been bombers in some cases (percentage wise)........ But try to contradict me on the fact that Men are the greatest percent of Muslim Jihadists...... Then please re-read my final line..... Re-read it several times....... Until you understand what I am saying......

Edited to add........ No need to apologise ..........

Edited June 30, 2017 by sawadeeken
add verbage...

[observer90210]

14 minutes ago, sawadeeken said:

For you and observer90210..........

NO WAY did I overlook the women and maybe kids as having been bombers in some cases (percentage wise)........ But try to contradict me on the fact that Men are the greatest percent of Muslim Jihadists...... Then please re-read my final line..... Re-read it several times....... Until you understand what I am saying......

Edited to add........ No need to apologise ..........

Whatever you say, sir!  But there is a difference in this post of yours that says "men are the greatest % of Mslm Jihad.".....and your initial post calling to "close the door to Muslim Men as they are causing all the trouble".....kindly read this and your previous post as many times you suggest others to do so,  and I am sure you would catch the subtlety of a message conveyed through different lexical and syntax choices....No need to feel bad or get upset.....

Edited June 30, 2017 by observer90210

[sawadeeken]

17 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

YOU think it over!  Women and children HAVE been used as suicide bombers.  Tell the rabid Islamists that men will be excluded, but women & children still be allowed, and what do you REALLY think will be the consequence?  Again, you're the one who needs to think a little bit more.

 

That which "cuts the percentages drastically ............"  is unfortunately and incredibly a matter of the politically correct yet again trumping the patently obvious.

 

And once again we owe our thanks to that great religion of peace.

And who might that religion be in your final line???????????

[sawadeeken]

42 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Whatever you say, sir!  But there is a difference in this post of yours that says "men are the greatest % of Mslm Jihad.".....and your initial post calling to "close the door to Muslim Men as they are causing all the trouble".....kindly read this and your previous post as many times you suggest others to do so,  and I am sure you would catch the subtlety of a message conveyed through different lexical and syntax choices....No need to feel bad or get upset.....

I'm pleased that you finally understood my intent about it being mostly the 'men'......... If you look at all the unruly protests (videos in the news) in Europe you see mostly or all 'Men'.... ISIS mostly Men although they do get a few 'Comfort women' volunteers...........

Yes....... Close our 'US' doors to Muslim Men and we will probably avoid what Spain and Holland and Germany and England are dealing with today......... Cheers from a Yank........

[observer90210]

Just now, sawadeeken said:

I'm pleased that you finally understood my intent about it being mostly the 'men'......... If you look at all the unruly protests (videos in the news) in Europe you see mostly or all 'Men'.... ISIS mostly Men although they do get a few 'Comfort women' volunteers...........

Yes....... Close our 'US' doors to Muslim Men and we will probably avoid what Spain and Holland and Germany and England are dealing with today......... Cheers from a Yank........

Cannot say if the majority are men, but if you do, I will not contradict...

 

The point is that not all....not all muslims are terrorists...and stigmatizing all muslims seems irrelevant should they be men, women, boys, girls, ladyboys whatever....

 

Cheers from the Old Continent.

[balo]

Most of the terror attacks inside the US has been performed by US citizens , you have to go all the way back to 2001 and 9/11 to find foreigners involved in terror attacks in the US .   

 

So there's no point in trying to stop people from travelling.

Next week we'll be reading about some maniac with a gun  with a US passport. 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sawadeeken]

41 minutes ago, balo said:

Most of the terror attacks inside the US has been performed by US citizens , you have to go all the way back to 2001 and 9/11 to find foreigners involved in terror attacks in the US .   

 

So there's no point in trying to stop people from travelling.

Next week we'll be reading about some maniac with a gun  with a US passport. 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup........... Happened at my hometown in San Bernardino, California....... He had a good job in a local government agency and was a (Naturalized) US citizen (muslim) and his wife who recently immigrated (on a fiance visa) was the one who enticed him to Kill some 20 odd co-workers at a (non-muslim)  'Christmas Party'............

Yes..... we have whackos of our own....... we have so many, mind you, that we don't need to import more.......  Therefore no muslims from muslim countries that hate non-muslims (especially muslim men) ---- I am ALL for it.....

We, The USA, don't want the problems we see in Spain, Holland, Germany, England amongst other countries.............

[balo]

10 minutes ago, sawadeeken said:

We, The USA, don't want the problems we see in Spain, Holland, Germany, England amongst other countries.............

But almost all the attacks in Europe have been performed by born citizens , so same same really .  It's too late now , trying to stop people from travelling to the US on holiday or to visit family members will not help, it will only make people upset. 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by balo

[Scott]

8 hours ago, Srikcir said:

 

Might become a big market for fake job offers, familial letters of reference, etc.

Supreme Court says includes lecturers invited to speak to American audiences. Going to be a lot of fake or contrived lecturer invitations?

What is an entity? A thing with distinct and independent existence, -a being, creature, individual, organism, life form, a corporation.  Could such entity be a pet dog?

"Fiancées, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and other extended family members are not considered to have 'close familial ties,' under the Trump administration's interpretation of the Supreme Court's order." http://www.businessinsider.com/us-travel-ban-exemptions-supreme-court-bona-fide-relationship-2017-6

So Trump has no familial ties to his son-in-law Kushner nor Barron to his grandparents?

Going to be a lot of lawsuits that will just continue critical press for the Trump administration.

 

This is basically how screening for a visa is done to some extent in most countries, especially poorer countries.  The definition of immediate family is the same.   The definition of extended family is the same.  If you are applying for a a family member to resettle in the US as a sponsor, the listed immediate family member are always given priority in resettlement.   Extended family member, if they are eligible, have to wait in a long queue and many years for resettlement.   This ban is temporary, so it is a delay.   I also assume they will not allow new applicants to file a petition during the time the ban is effect.  

 

There is no basis for a legal challenge by anyone denied a visa, especially since this is under the Supreme Court's directive.  

 

The limitations on those who can enter is limited in time, so those who have a petition in process, but not approved, will likely just be delayed.  

 

As far as fake documents, invitations etc..   that has always been a problem and what they will look at is such things as is it a licensed/registered entity, and if so, for how long.   If it is a person, do they have sufficient funds and they can and do ask for a certified copies of tax records for the past 3 years.   There are other safeguards in place as well.  

[sawadeeken]

13 hours ago, balo said:

 

13 hours ago, sawadeeken said:

We, The USA, don't want the problems we see in Spain, Holland, Germany, England amongst other countries.............

But almost all the attacks in Europe have been performed by born citizens , so same same really .  It's too late now , trying to stop people from travelling to the US on holiday or to visit family members will not help, it will only make people upset. 

 

 

"trying to stop people from travelling to the US on holiday or to visit family members"

I address this with respect: From the 6 countries being affected I doubt there are many of them intending 'tourism' (as tourists)..... On the other hand it sounds like after scrutiny Probably intense SCRUTINY) many planning family visits MAY be approved..........

It is 'IMMIGRANT Visas' that are the worrysome ones..... From those 6 countries.........

I re-iterate however --- We, The USA, don't want the problems we see in Spain, Holland, Germany, England amongst other countries.............

I think I have heard that we may have in the US, A few 'NO GO ZONES'...... areas completely occupied by muslims, where 'they' are trying to impose 'their' Shira law........ as is happening now in many places in Europe and Britain..........

IMO --- Don't let them in and they won't try to overrun us as they are seen doing other places.....

Not to say that there are not 'good muslims', but after what we see happening daily they may the innocent victims of their own religious followers..........

[Grubster]

On 6/29/2017 at 10:30 AM, Jonnapat said:

After many lower courts blockingTrump's ban, looks like the US Supreme Court is going to be politically motivated.

The Supreme court makes decisions on issues that the lower courts are having issues with, that is what they do. Abortion being the biggest issue in my lifetime.