TRUMP SIGNS NEW IMMIGRATION EXECUTIVE ORDER

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedThe Trump Administration has issued a new executive order on immigration.  As expected, the second order removes some of the most controversial provisions of the first order and tightens the language.  Iraq has been dropped from the list of countries subject to the 90 day ban. However, there will be additional security of Iraqi nationals. That would leave Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Libya.  The permanent ban on entry of Syrians has been removed. There is still a limit on all refugees to 50,000 — a 50 percent cut.  Current VISA holders and permanent residents are exempted.  Notably, this travel ban will be implemented on March 16 and the order will be dated to run from the date of the original executive order (which was .  Finally, the preferential treatment afforded to religious minorities has been removed.

The new order removes the edges from the rather casual drafting of the first order.  As I previously noted, good lawyering rarely changes the outcome of litigation but bad lawyering can.  The first order reflects remarkably bad lawyering — if indeed it was drafted primarily by lawyers.  Of course, this still distinguishes between people based on their nationality — the core of the challenge of the earlier litigation.  Thus, it is likely that this will face new challenges — or attempts to amend earlier complaints.  The rollout with the Secretary of State, Homeland Security Security, and the Attorney General shows a significant change in the level of professionalism from the more improvisational effort of the original order.  It was a surprisingly sharp learning curve but the A-Team appears to have shown up to defend this order.  The new order is below.

As I have previously discussed, the federal law relevant to this question contains tension between provisions that grant sweeping authority to a president while at the same time limiting that authority with regard to certain types of discrimination. The 1952 immigration laws states in Section 1182(f): “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” That is obviously quite sweeping and supporting of the actions taken under this executive order.

However, in 1965 the Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That laws was designed to end the quota system given numerical preference to certain European countries. The operative provision states “no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” Congress exempted Cuban refugees but otherwise stated that no discrimination based on national or place of residence would be tolerated.

It is important to recognize what the 1965 law does not do. First, it does not apply to refugees and thus would not impact much of this order. This deals with immigrants securing visas. Second, the law does not ban discrimination based on religion.

The 1990 Act does include the following provision:

“An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”

However, that provision refers to an individual alien being kept out due to their “beliefs” and allows an override by the Secretary of State. The executive order is seeking a vetting process for individuals entering the country to isolate those with extreme or violent views. Moreover, while I have always been critical of the practice, exclusion due to extreme views is a recognized practice in countries like England. It is doubtful that Democrats would disagree that the Administration should bar entry of those individuals with violent pasts or violent beliefs.

Third, the law governs visas not later requirements of reporting or other conditions once immigrants are granted entry. Thus, President Carter signed out Iranian for special procedures and deported thousands of them. Finally, and most importantly, the law was itself amended in 1996. Congress expressly stated that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. Thus, the Administration could argue that “vetting procedures” are exempted even for non-refugees.

With the exemption of green card holders among hundreds granted entry, the foot print for analysis under the 1965 language has been reduced further by the Administration. Notably, the Office of Legal Counsel reviewed these laws and signed off on the legality of the executive order. I expect it was due to these exemptions and the amendment.

That does not mean that there is not a compelling argument to make but it is not as facially clear as has been suggested. Like the OLC, I would still give the advantage to the Administration. However, this is clearly the best foundation for challenge.

Of course, that leaves a potential conflict between the statute and inherent president authority in a rehash of past cases like U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright. In that opinion, the Court held:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

Presented with such a conflict, the provision could be narrowly construed. Courts have long adopted interpretations that would avoid such conflicts. If there is a narrow interpretation of the 1965 law that would avoid the conflict, it traditionally has been favored by federal courts.

The challenge to the order is also burdened by history. If the 1965 law means what the ACLU has suggested, actions by presidents from Carter to Obama would be facially unconstitutional. Presidents have routinely identified countries as raising threats requiring special procedures. President Obama was among them. There is no requirement that this can only be done in response to an attack or specific threat if the president finds a national security danger. Courts are loathe to substitute their judgment on such questions for a president.

So where does all of that leave us? It leaves us with a good-faith challenge to an executive order, but a challenge that will have to clear away a host of existing cases to prevail. Could it happen? Sure, but it is important not to overstate the authority in the area or allow passions to overcome analysis. At most the 1965 law would be relevant to part of the order and even for that portion (on the seven identified countries) the Administration has strong arguments on the basis of inherent plenary authority and statutory exemptions.

The second order clearly is stronger for purposes of litigation but the Justice Department also has to improve its defense of the action.  I was astonished by the lackadaisical and uninspired defense by the Justice Department in the first round.  I thought the challengers performed much better in litigation and that will have to change if this Administration is going to get off the legal launching pad.

The 90-day ban is still based on the need to implement new procedures or vetting rules.  Iraq’s removal from the list is justified on the basis of further negotiations with Iraq to, according to a fact sheet released by the White House, “increase cooperation with the U.S. government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States.”

Not only is the rollout obviously improved but the White House consulted with Congress and the order’s signing occurred with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions present.  The  Department of Homeland Security will conduct a country-by-country review of the information the six targeted nations provide to the U.S. for visa and immigration decisions. There is an express process for how countries will be given 50 days to comply with U.S. government requests to update or improve that information.

The message of the trio of cabinet members was to convey far greater coordination but also foundation for the new order.  This includes Sessions’ disclosure that 300 refugees are currently under investigation for terrorism in the United States. The new order also includes textual explanations for the listing of countries.

For the challengers, there could be an attempt to amend the existing actions on the grounds that the underluying distinction based on nationality still exists.  The usual approach is for a new action to be filed to challenge a new executive order. Here the President has rescinded the earlier order which would normally moot the action.  Either way, it should not take long for this matter to be back before a variety of federal courts.

The position the Administration had the advantage of the case law even under the prior order.  This order will be even more difficult to challenge and the odds heavily favor the Administration.

 

Here is the new order:

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals. The screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) play a crucial role in detecting foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism and in preventing those individuals from entering the United States. It is therefore the policy of the United States to improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the USRAP.

(b) On January 27, 2017, to implement this policy, I issued Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States).

(i) Among other actions, Executive Order 13769 suspended for 90 days the entry of certain aliens from seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These are countries that had already been identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States. Specifically, the suspension applied to countries referred to in, or designated under, section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), in which Congress restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program for nationals of, and aliens recently present in, (A) Iraq or Syria, (B) any country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria, and Sudan), and (C) any other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence. In 2016, the Secretary of Homeland Security designated Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as additional countries of concern for travel purposes, based on consideration of three statutory factors related to terrorism and national security: “(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States; (II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and (III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.” 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii). Additionally, Members of Congress have expressed concerns about screening and vetting procedures following recent terrorist attacks in this country and in Europe.

(ii) In ordering the temporary suspension of entry described in subsection (b)(i) of this section, I exercised my authority under Article II of the Constitution and under section 212(f) of the INA, which provides in relevant part: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). Under these authorities, I determined that, for a brief period of 90 days, while existing screening and vetting procedures were under review, the entry into the United States of certain aliens from the seven identified countries — each afflicted by terrorism in a manner that compromised the ability of the United States to rely on normal decision-making procedures about travel to the United States — would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant case-by-case waivers when they determined that it was in the national interest to do so.

(iii) Executive Order 13769 also suspended the USRAP for 120 days. Terrorist groups have sought to infiltrate several nations through refugee programs. Accordingly, I temporarily suspended the USRAP pending a review of our procedures for screening and vetting refugees. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly grant case-by-case waivers when they determined that it was in the national interest to do so.

(iv) Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion. While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion. That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities — whoever they are and wherever they reside — to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.

(c) The implementation of Executive Order 13769 has been delayed by litigation. Most significantly, enforcement of critical provisions of that order has been temporarily halted by court orders that apply nationwide and extend even to foreign nationals with no prior or substantial connection to the United States. On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to stay or narrow one such order pending the outcome of further judicial proceedings, while noting that the “political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions” about who should be covered by a suspension of entry or of refugee admissions.

(d) Nationals from the countries previously identified under section 217(a)(12) of the INA warrant additional scrutiny in connection with our immigration policies because the conditions in these countries present heightened threats. Each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones. Any of these circumstances diminishes the foreign government’s willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States. Moreover, the significant presence in each of these countries of terrorist organizations, their members, and others exposed to those organizations increases the chance that conditions will be exploited to enable terrorist operatives or sympathizers to travel to the United States. Finally, once foreign nationals from these countries are admitted to the United States, it is often difficult to remove them, because many of these countries typically delay issuing, or refuse to issue, travel documents.

(e) The following are brief descriptions, taken in part from the Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2015 (June 2016), of some of the conditions in six of the previously designated countries that demonstrate why their nationals continue to present heightened risks to the security of the United States:

(i) Iran. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and continues to support various terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, and terrorist groups in Iraq. Iran has also been linked to support for al-Qa’ida and has permitted al-Qa’ida to transport funds and fighters through Iran to Syria and South Asia. Iran does not cooperate with the United States in counterterrorism efforts.

(ii) Libya. Libya is an active combat zone, with hostilities between the internationally recognized government and its rivals. In many parts of the country, security and law enforcement functions are provided by armed militias rather than state institutions. Violent extremist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), have exploited these conditions to expand their presence in the country. The Libyan government provides some cooperation with the United States’ counterterrorism efforts, but it is unable to secure thousands of miles of its land and maritime borders, enabling the illicit flow of weapons, migrants, and foreign terrorist fighters. The United States Embassy in Libya suspended its operations in 2014.

(iii) Somalia. Portions of Somalia have been terrorist safe havens. Al-Shabaab, an al-Qa’ida-affiliated terrorist group, has operated in the country for years and continues to plan and mount operations within Somalia and in neighboring countries. Somalia has porous borders, and most countries do not recognize Somali identity documents. The Somali government cooperates with the United States in some counterterrorism operations but does not have the capacity to sustain military pressure on or to investigate suspected terrorists.

(iv) Sudan. Sudan has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993 because of its support for international terrorist groups, including Hizballah and Hamas. Historically, Sudan provided safe havens for al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups to meet and train. Although Sudan’s support to al-Qa’ida has ceased and it provides some cooperation with the United States’ counterterrorism efforts, elements of core al-Qa’ida and ISIS-linked terrorist groups remain active in the country.

(v) Syria. Syria has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. The Syrian government is engaged in an ongoing military conflict against ISIS and others for control of portions of the country. At the same time, Syria continues to support other terrorist groups. It has allowed or encouraged extremists to pass through its territory to enter Iraq. ISIS continues to attract foreign fighters to Syria and to use its base in Syria to plot or encourage attacks around the globe, including in the United States. The United States Embassy in Syria suspended its operations in 2012. Syria does not cooperate with the United States’ counterterrorism efforts.

(vi) Yemen. Yemen is the site of an ongoing conflict between the incumbent government and the Houthi-led opposition. Both ISIS and a second group, al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), have exploited this conflict to expand their presence in Yemen and to carry out hundreds of attacks. Weapons and other materials smuggled across Yemen’s porous borders are used to finance AQAP and other terrorist activities. In 2015, the United States Embassy in Yemen suspended its operations, and embassy staff were relocated out of the country. Yemen has been supportive of, but has not been able to cooperate fully with, the United States in counterterrorism efforts.

(f) In light of the conditions in these six countries, until the assessment of current screening and vetting procedures required by section 2 of this order is completed, the risk of erroneously permitting entry of a national of one of these countries who intends to commit terrorist acts or otherwise harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high. Accordingly, while that assessment is ongoing, I am imposing a temporary pause on the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in section 3 of this order.

(g) Iraq presents a special case. Portions of Iraq remain active combat zones. Since 2014, ISIS has had dominant influence over significant territory in northern and central Iraq. Although that influence has been significantly reduced due to the efforts and sacrifices of the Iraqi government and armed forces, working along with a United States-led coalition, the ongoing conflict has impacted the Iraqi government’s capacity to secure its borders and to identify fraudulent travel documents. Nevertheless, the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combat ISIS justify different treatment for Iraq. In particular, those Iraqi government forces that have fought to regain more than half of the territory previously dominated by ISIS have shown steadfast determination and earned enduring respect as they battle an armed group that is the common enemy of Iraq and the United States. In addition, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal. Decisions about issuance of visas or granting admission to Iraqi nationals should be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine if applicants have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations, or otherwise pose a risk to either national security or public safety.

(h) Recent history shows that some of those who have entered the United States through our immigration system have proved to be threats to our national security. Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. They have included not just persons who came here legally on visas but also individuals who first entered the country as refugees. For example, in January 2013, two Iraqi nationals admitted to the United States as refugees in 2009 were sentenced to 40 years and to life in prison, respectively, for multiple terrorism-related offenses. And in October 2014, a native of Somalia who had been brought to the United States as a child refugee and later became a naturalized United States citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction as part of a plot to detonate a bomb at a crowded Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. The Attorney General has reported to me that more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(i) Given the foregoing, the entry into the United States of foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism remains a matter of grave concern. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s observation that the political branches are better suited to determine the appropriate scope of any suspensions than are the courts, and in order to avoid spending additional time pursuing litigation, I am revoking Executive Order 13769 and replacing it with this order, which expressly excludes from the suspensions categories of aliens that have prompted judicial concerns and which clarifies or refines the approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens.

Sec. 2. Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall conduct a worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat. The Secretary of Homeland Security may conclude that certain information is needed from particular countries even if it is not needed from every country.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the worldwide review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed from each country for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 20 days of the effective date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening and vetting of foreign nationals, to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists, and in light of the national security concerns referenced in section 1 of this order, I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that the entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of this order, subject to the limitations, waivers, and exceptions set forth in sections 3 and 12 of this order.

(d) Upon submission of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed from each country for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request that all foreign governments that do not supply such information regarding their nationals begin providing it within 50 days of notification.

(e) After the period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other means. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security may also submit to the President the names of additional countries for which any of them recommends other lawful restrictions or limitations deemed necessary for the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) At any point after the submission of the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment, as well as the names of any countries that they recommend should be removed from the scope of a proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section.

(g) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 90 days of the effective date of this order, a third report within 120 days of the effective date of this order, and a fourth report within 150 days of the effective date of this order.

Sec. 3. Scope and Implementation of Suspension.

(a) Scope. Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any waiver under subsection (c) of this section, the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:

(i) are outside the United States on the effective date of this order;

(ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and

(iii) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order.

(b) Exceptions. The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall not apply to:

(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

(ii) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the effective date of this order;

(iii) any foreign national who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of this order or issued on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document;

(iv) any dual national of a country designated under section 2 of this order when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country;

(v) any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; or

(vi) any foreign national who has been granted asylum; any refugee who has already been admitted to the United States; or any individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

(c) Waivers. Notwithstanding the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order, a consular officer, or, as appropriate, the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner’s delegee, may, in the consular officer’s or the CBP official’s discretion, decide on a case-by-case basis to authorize the issuance of a visa to, or to permit the entry of, a foreign national for whom entry is otherwise suspended if the foreign national has demonstrated to the officer’s satisfaction that denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship, and that his or her entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest. Unless otherwise specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, any waiver issued by a consular officer as part of the visa issuance process will be effective both for the issuance of a visa and any subsequent entry on that visa, but will leave all other requirements for admission or entry unchanged. Case-by-case waivers could be appropriate in circumstances such as the following:

(i) the foreign national has previously been admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity, is outside the United States on the effective date of this order, seeks to reenter the United States to resume that activity, and the denial of reentry during the suspension period would impair that activity;

(ii) the foreign national has previously established significant contacts with the United States but is outside the United States on the effective date of this order for work, study, or other lawful activity;

(iii) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry during the suspension period would impair those obligations;

(iv) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa, and the denial of entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship;

(v) the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case;

(vi) the foreign national has been employed by, or on behalf of, the United States Government (or is an eligible dependent of such an employee) and the employee can document that he or she has provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government;

(vii) the foreign national is traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C. 288 et seq., traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government, or traveling to conduct business on behalf of an international organization not designated under the IOIA;

(viii) the foreign national is a landed Canadian immigrant who applies for a visa at a location within Canada; or

(ix) the foreign national is traveling as a United States Government-sponsored exchange visitor.

Sec. 4. Additional Inquiries Related to Nationals of Iraq. An application by any Iraqi national for a visa, admission, or other immigration benefit should be subjected to thorough review, including, as appropriate, consultation with a designee of the Secretary of Defense and use of the additional information that has been obtained in the context of the close U.S.-Iraqi security partnership, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, concerning individuals suspected of ties to ISIS or other terrorist organizations and individuals coming from territories controlled or formerly controlled by ISIS. Such review shall include consideration of whether the applicant has connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations or with territory that is or has been under the dominant influence of ISIS, as well as any other information bearing on whether the applicant may be a threat to commit acts of terrorism or otherwise threaten the national security or public safety of the United States.

Sec. 5. Implementing Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This program shall include the development of a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that applicants are who they claim to be; a mechanism to assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States; and any other appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary for a rigorous evaluation of all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the program described in subsection (a) of this section within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the effective date of this order.

Sec. 6. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status, for 120 days after the effective date of this order, subject to waivers pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication processes to determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. The suspension described in this subsection shall not apply to refugee applicants who, before the effective date of this order, have been formally scheduled for transit by the Department of State. The Secretary of State shall resume travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP 120 days after the effective date of this order, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless persons and nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that the additional procedures implemented pursuant to this subsection are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any entries in excess of that number until such time as I determine that additional entries would be in the national interest.

(c) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the entry of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States, including in circumstances such as the following: the individual’s entry would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement or arrangement, or the denial of entry would cause undue hardship.

(d) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of State shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 7. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority permitted by section 212(d)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B), relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing directives or guidance.

Sec. 8. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for in-scope travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive set forth in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the effective date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the effective date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit further reports every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 9. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1202, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions. This suspension shall not apply to any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the IOIA; or traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that nonimmigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 10. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements and arrangements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If another country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant 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.

Sec. 11. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called “honor killings,” in the United States by foreign nationals; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall release the initial report under subsection (a) of this section within 180 days of the effective date of this order and shall include information for the period from September 11, 2001, until the date of the initial report. Subsequent reports shall be issued every 180 days thereafter and reflect the period since the previous report.

Sec. 12. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate domestic and international partners, including countries and organizations, to ensure efficient, effective, and appropriate implementation of the actions directed in this order.

(b) In implementing this order, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including, as appropriate, those providing an opportunity for individuals to claim a fear of persecution or torture, such as the credible fear determination for aliens covered by section 235(b)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A).

(c) No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the effective date of this order shall be revoked pursuant to this order.

(d) Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry. Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility.

(e) This order shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, consistent with the laws of the United States.

Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.

Sec. 14. Effective Date. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.

Sec. 15. Severability. (a) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(b) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements.

Sec. 16. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 6, 2017.

90 thoughts on “TRUMP SIGNS NEW IMMIGRATION EXECUTIVE ORDER”

  1. Travel Ban Part II heats up as Federal Judge bans…..

    That was the headline

    As I predicted there wouldn’t be much to this one and the judge banned one case only. So far not much fine tuning to do in Version Three I guess the shiny baubles of leftist fairy tails distracted some from the remarkably fast time it’s taking to deal with another of Obama leg of C’s more like leg of F’s.

    Left loses again.

    Next finish off obamacare and a nice tax cut. ..what will be their story then?????

    Does it really matter or something.

  2. I guess shiny baubles Distracts some, they can’t see the end game. They have been conned by the very mediocre gameplay.

    1. Why? Please explain why you are content with our current vetting procedure for immigrants, as well as our current state of monitoring of overstayed visas. Recall that the 9/11 hijackers overstayed student visas.

      I’ve never heard anyone explain to me why they are satisfied with our current procedure, and sanguine about stopping terrorism. As it currently stands, we arrested hundreds of people for attempted terrorism in our country, 72 of which came from the 7 countries named. I’ve heard arguments for increased vetting, including the problem where migrants throw away their documents, and then we have absolutely no way to tell who they are. Or we have to depend on security databases in Syria for information.

      So I’ve heard many arguments for more vetting, but none against it, except that it may come across as rude. But can anyone explain to me why what we’re currently doing is enough? From the arrests, it’s a fact that terrorism is trying to get in, via a variety of methods, from traveling here to radicalizing over the Internet. Aren’t you concerned that, in light of the increase in effort to have another terrorist attack, we should increase our efforts to stop it? Why is what we’re doing enough?

      Anyone please feel free to jump in here. It’s an open question to help me understand. I get the concern that it may be perceived as rude, unwelcoming, or racist to single out terrorist nations for extra scrutiny. And, in fact, I am concerned that terrorists have already spread to other countries not on that list and take a more roundabout way here. But I have heard no argument why extra vetting is not needed.

      1. Karen S — The 9/11 perps came from Saudi Arabia. The major mistake was on the part of the FBI.

        1. The 9/11 perps overstayed their visas. Our broken immigration system failed to follow up on overstayed visas. So many red flags were overlooked because people were afraid to be accused of being racist or non PC. You would think that if someone showed an interest only in taking off, and not landing, that it would raise at least some suspicion. There were all sorts of terrorist ties that were overlooked. And many of the very people who partitioned the CIA and FBI did not lose their jobs, but rather entrenched in Homeland Security, and continue to make decisions about national security to this day. (How’s that for the status quo?)

          So that was one terrorist attack where our status quo, PC policies failed us and killed a great many people.

          Then there are the over 300 foreign born people arrested for attempted terrorism. Now, think about the damage that 4 plane hijackers, and 2 brothers with pressure cookers did…how many people 6 people killed on 2 different occasions. Now…multiply that by 50 near misses…

          We had 72 near misses from the 7 countries on the list, who were arrested for attempted terrorism. 72 times we almost had people die. One of them was attempting to use a dirty bomb. What is the cost for one single mistake? Why do we take more care keeping avian flu and mad cow out of poultry and meat products, then we do protecting our people?

          It is impossible to prevent every single act of terrorist violence. All we can do is our best. Is the status quo our best? Considering how many times terrorists have tried to kill us on our soil, and how hard they are trying, are we satisfied with our current policies, or do we, perhaps, want to be extra careful in our vetting techniques?

          Now, back to the question. I asked you why you were satisfied, specifically, with our current vetting techniques. You responded with a non sequitur that the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. OK. 72 other attempted terrorists were from the 7 countries. And I didn’t ask you if you agreed with the countries on the list. I asked if you agreed with our vetting techniques, and why. (I personally think that we should tighten vetting on all immigrants, and if you’re going to put together an extra vetting list of countries, then add Belgium to it.)

          So, as to your comment about the 9/11 hijackers, the monitoring of overstayed visas is also important. I also agree that additional countries should be added to extra vetting.

          But you still have not explained to me why our current standard of vetting is OK, considering hundreds of people have gone through the process and still tried to kill us all. I also use Belgium and Germany’s spiraling crime rates as evidence of the consequences of poorly thought out immigration policy.

          I am not against admitting Muslim immigrants. I just want a really good net to sieve out the Richard Spencers of the Middle East. Don’t you?

      2. I belive that religious minorities should have preference. It’s rather cheeky that Muslims can slaughter the Christians, Jews and Yazidis in their borders, and then complain about discrimination against “Muslim majority” countries. There’s a reason they are Muslim majority, and it’s not pretty. The Trump administration wimped out on withdrawing that provision. There is certainly a wealth of documentation chronicling the persecution and murder of non-Muslims in Muslim countries; enough that should clearly give the remaining religious minorities from those countries preference as refugees.

      3. […]satisfied with our current procedure, and sanguine about stopping terrorism. -Why?

        Generally such questions are just set ups; it wouldn’t be worth the bother trying, but you are particular in that you are sincere when you ask such. That doesn’t mean I can answer them, but I can give one pov.

        1) The risk of being hurt by a terrorist is very low. Much less than your chance of being struck by lightning.. We already live in the safest country in the world with, ironically, one of the most frightened population re terrorism. We are giving up precious civil liberties (constant and increasing monitoring) in the name of “security” and are actually more likely to loose both security and civil liberties by increased screening. Our current level of screening has been more than enough to prevent any major attacks.

        2) The money it costs tax payers to increase security without increasing safety would be better spent on other projects, such as lowering drug costs or improving air quality that would save far more lives.

        3) One can never be sanguine (or 100% successful) about stopping all terrorism, domestic or foreign, but one can be judicious about reaching the point where more so called security has little or no measurable benefit in comparison to the screening already in place. It would behoove the President to present a study supporting his thesis that such additional security is worth the additional cost to tax payers including the cost of creating additional enemies abroad by such policies. Without this, it seems a more likely argument that the benefit of additional security is for Trump, not us, and is simply to keep the population paranoid about their safety and thus acquiescent to the loss of ever more civil liberties.

        4) It is particularly telling that no one is willing to answer simple questions about why those specific 5 countries vs. others such as Saudi Arabia from where most of the 9/11 terrorists came. Lame excuses such as we can’t know because, due to security, we don’t have the information the President has are just as bad as Democrat excuses that we can’t know any proof about the allegations of Russian Hacking because it would give away secrets about our intelligence agencies. Without any evidence at all, it looks suspiciously like the reason Saudia Arabia and other countries are not on the list is because they have considerable economic interest to Trump and his financial empire. Easily Googled.

        1. Brooklyn:

          1) The risk of an African American getting killed by a cop is very low, and yet reform of police is considered a high priority. Even after 9/11, the risk of your building being taken down by a plane was very low. There are many buildings in America. But that’s the nature of terrorism, murder a few to terrorize the many. And yet, we still created Homeland Security, TSA, and all sorts of screening efforts to combat that risk. We are not privy to the information about the near misses, the fraction of a hair upon which mass casualties were avoided. And we still have had beheadings, Boston Massacre, San Bernardino…We’ve failed in a variety of fronts of immigration, and people have died. I DO absolutely agree with you that we must be cautious against giving away our Constitutional freedoms in exchange for security.

          2) “The money it costs tax payers to increase security without increasing safety would be better spent on other projects, such as lowering drug costs or improving air quality that would save far more lives.” Well, we’d have to do a cost benefit analysis of how much it would cost to ask more questions, vs not asking questions and having people die. The San Berdu wife was all over the Internet with extremist views, and no one troubled to take 5 minutes to check. That’s one of the first things we should check for prospective immigrants, is a search for extremist views or support of ISIS. I DO agree that there is hideous government waste already, and we certainly don’t want to waste funds.

          3) “It would behoove the President to present a study supporting his thesis that such additional security is worth the additional cost to tax payers including the cost of creating additional enemies abroad by such policies.” I agree, except for the creating additional enemies. ISIS and Boko Haram and Al Qaeda and the Taliban hated us before Trump, because we’re the West, we educate women, let them vote, let them dress themselves, speak their minds, allow other religions besides Islam, allow criticism of all religions including Islam, allow Jews to walk about like everyone else without paying a fine, allow homosexuals to live, allow apostasy…etc. Most extremist hate groups hate us because we are the West. They hate us for criticizing their treatment of women, jews, gays, apostates, etc. Unless we are willing to become a Muslim theocracy, with all that such entails, they are our enemies. They believe we poison the minds of women and children with our subversive talk of equality and freedom. That belief will not suddenly become tolerance for the West. They have hated the West since 1,000 years ago with the Muslim Expansion. The Middle East used to be majority Christian until it was put to the fire and sword. Given the chance, they would immolate Israel, and expand outward to make a holy and good global caliphate. In face, that’s ISIS’s mission statement – to create a global caliphate to bring about the End of Days. Boko Haram translates to that it is a sin (haram) to have Western education. I agree with a cost benefit analysis, but not that there is any way to lessen extremists’ hatred for us. Oh, and I forgot to point out that our intelligence community has been almost unanimous that it is unable to properly vet refugees based on Syria’s database, lack of documentation, migration of people from other countries claiming to be refugees, and it has indicated that it has intercepted ISIS communications that it is infiltrating refugees. One of their methods is they give money, food, and transportation to teenage male refugees in exchange for their pledge, all while they’re in a scary position for any child.

          So I agree with you that we need to be effective, just not on all of your points.

          You are the only one to take the time to answer my questions, and I greatly appreciate it. It’s so nice to be able to have a two way conversation on different views, as it can sometimes affect my own.

          1. Karen,

            I don’t know why anyone in favor of enhanced vetting should be concerned about being labeled “racist.” Islam is a religion, not a race, and it’s adherents are white, black and Asian. Middle Easterners, whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian, are white. Assad, the president of Syria, has blue eyes.

            1. That’s true. Although the feature of Assad that I find most striking is his lisp. He’s a serial killer with a lisp who sounds like the evil pharaoh in Night of the Museum, Smithsonian.

          2. At the risk of being a bore, I’ll continue for one more round – thanks for reading my original reply and don’t take this one as “militant” (at all). I’m just pointing out opposing views here (which I share for the most part though not entirely).

            The risk of an African American getting killed by a cop is very low, and yet reform of police is considered a high priority.

            True, but we do not already have an apparatus of thousands of agents checking each police arrest as it happens for instances of unnecessary force (nor will we). We have body cameras which are but a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the cost or effectiveness of our boarder screening agents, absurd number of intelligence agencies working 24/7, and infrastructure.

            I should point out that even under Obama, or our current system, we have an unnecessarily large and unwieldy apparatus to screen foreign entries into the country.

            And we still have had beheadings, Boston Massacre, San Bernardino…
            Are any of these acts due to foreign entry terrorists? That is, people who might be caught at the boarder with the old or new screening? Even a single one?

            -Vox (there are dozens of these given a quick search by duckduckgo.com – or google)
            But not one domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 has been committed by a foreign terrorist organization. Overall, terrorism in America is happening from homegrown radicals.
            http://www.vox.com/2015/11/23/9765718/domestic-terrorism-threat

            As to terrorists from the countries Trump originally or now chooses,

            But after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015. [I believe the correct upper date is 2017].

            Zero.

            Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or executing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during that time period, according to Nowrasteh’s research. (Nowrasteh focused on plots against the U.S. homeland, which presumably Trump cares most about, rather than other terrorism-related offenses, like supporting a foreign terrorist group or trying to join a jihadist organization overseas.)

            https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

            I agree [about additional costs to tax payers], except for the creating additional enemies.

            The number of foreign terrorists has done nothing but grow since 9/11, even if the number of attacks on domestic soil from these groups remains at zero, and we have been waging war in Islamic countries in the M.E. during the exact same time. No coincidence. Most of these wars have little or nothing to do with 9/11. Our use of drones alone has created an incredible amount of justifiable and lethel resentment. We have killed innocent men women and children by the thousands, including at weddings of all things, and it is beyond dispute that this has been used extensively by terrorists groups for recruiting purposes.

            This internet result set of screening overkill goes on and on and on if you look about the web a little. They talk about President Trump (even conservative sites) but they really should be including Obama as well.

            And that is not to say that reasonable measures and screening should not be maintained at our borders. That is accepted by everyone as a given. Simply not the excess Trump is going to and more particularly his choice of countries and exclusion of others. Both questionable.

  3. To be frank, in today’s global reach of terrorism and cartels, I think most immigrants should be subject to “extreme vetting.” Belgium’s immigration policies have now made it tied with Syria for the cradle of terrorists, and Jews fear to tread many places there. And with the flood of poorly vetted refugees and asylum seekers, someone could come here from any number of terrorist nations via Italy, France, Belgium, or Germany, for example. If they are going to expand the list of nations for extreme vetting, we should include at least Belgium and Germany. I do not trust their vetting procedure, and their outcomes have been poor, no matter how frantically the government and media may try to hide it.

    As for bias against nationality, if the support of terrorism, or physical violence against Jews, for example, is the norm in an entire nation, and a kind view of Western values is the exception, then it’s rational to be very cautious about letting in people of that nationality. For a hypothetical example, how would Armenia have viewed the immigration of Turks shortly after the Armenian genocide? Would they be justified in being, say, extremely cautious based on nationality? We certainly show bias against Chinese manufacturing because the entire nation has been repeatedly found guilty of producing goods contaminated with very serious toxins. When there were outbreaks of avian flu, we banned poultry products from affected nations, again showing bias against an entire nation. We didn’t say, but that’s unfair to all the poultry products that didn’t have this disease, because the slip of just one contaminated product would have created havoc, and that was too high a price.

    We want the downtrodden, not those crushing them under their boot heel. We do need to be very cautious about immigration, because terrorism is spreading, and the Internet has been an effective vehicle of radicalization. As well, country of origin documentation gets thrown away, and it becomes very difficult to prove identity and background. That’s not to say it’s impossible, just difficult. We should prioritize the refugee applications of Christians, Yazidis, and any other persecuted classes in Syria. Otherwise, it’s like letting in a majority of Germans but only a fraction of them Jews fleeing WWII. Another example of prioritization is letting in the Iraqi interpreters who were embedded with our troops, thoroughly vetted, proved their loyalty, and at risk of having the Taliban slaughter them and their entire families for helping the West, over some random cross section of Iraqis who may want to immigrate.

    I think it’s been too long since 9/11, and even the Boston Massacre did not sustain the caution against terrorism for those living outside of Mass. We forget and get complacent. And then the next time some enormous swath of our population get taken out by crazed maniacs, we’ll react exactly the same as we did 16 years ago. We’ll irately demand, “Why wasn’t this prevented?” And we’ll look to government…

    1. Add Sweden to the list. They’re as bad as Germany in admitting anyone; many of whom have turned out to be criminals.

      1. I particularly enjoy reading about the bikini clad all female anti groping patrols who are working to protect women and girls from being molested at public pools. Apparently, men who come from regions where women are veiled and basically on lifetime house arrest under their men, get overcome when they go to the pool, and grab the women. It’s becoming a lot less fun for Swedish women at the pools. So it’s ironic and fun that girl power is working against men behaving badly.

        Just think, if Sweden plays its cards right, and keeps punishing those who complain with hate crimes, then Sweden could go from a chic tourist destination to yet another country where it’s unsafe for women to walk unattended by their male family member, speak their mind (they’ve got that item checked off already with their speech laws), and they’ll have to cover up to prevent being groped.

        Liberals intrinsically know that people don’t change. They don’t expect Richard Spencer’s mere presence in the US to change his racist ideology. They expect his prejudices to be pernicious and static. And yet, using their same reasoning skills, they believe that those raised in an even more extreme value system than Richard Spencer would ever dream of, will suddenly throw off the values they have been raised with from infancy, and suddenly become right at home in San Francisco, tolerant of all religions, especially Judaism, immune to the flash of cleavage, proponents of equal rights and respect for women, and uncaring if a female member of their family becomes an apostate who runs off to live in sin with an artist.

        I just do not follow their line of reasoning.

        There are plenty of people in the Middle East who would bloom here – women who want to escape an arranged marriage, teenagers who long to wear pretty clothes or have a cool hairstyle, poets, government or extremism critics, and those who are just sick of the constant grind of being under extremism. There is this intense obsession with monitoring women to make sure they are perfect. If a man has sex, well, that’s just guys being guys, but if a woman does so she’s going to die, often at the hands of her own father and brothers. They monitor what she says, where she goes, what she wears, and who she thinks is cute to such an obsessive degree. It must be so tiring. Yes, there is definitely a range in how women are treated, from Egypt to Syria to Saudi Arabia. Egypt is more of a tourist destination, or it was before the extremist Arab Spring tanked it, so Western women merely have to beat off the touts 45 times an hour. No, really. But at least they’re more used to seeing different people. For the most part, the Middle East is a very unfriendly place to women, if you use our equality and freedom as the scale.

        So I would rather pick and choose those who want to come here, want to become Americans, are interested in embracing our values, and who would bloom here, than to randomly take a cross section from countries infamous for support of terrorism and the abuse of women and gays. Honestly, what do they think will happen to the crime rates against women, gays, and Jews if we keep importing people known to abuse them? Save the seats for those Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, etc who want to be Westernized.

        1. Many Muslim men are more respectful of women than the current POTUS DONALD J TRUMP.

        2. I saw a documentary on Sweden. Many Swedish women have taken to dying their hair black and wearing scarves to avoid being attacked by refugees. A Swedish woman and her daughter were sitting on their balcony eating breakfast. A neighboring Muslim immigrant knocked on the door and stabbed the mother repeatedly, because the 8 y/o daughter was wearing shorts. These are people who demanded to go to Sweden because it provides the highest welfare benefits, yet spit on the social values of their generous hosts.

  4. What will really destroy the Democratic Party is the next ISIS attack somewhere in the U.S. If there is some Court order staying our Executive Order and some inmate from Syria has come in and killed some folks then the backlash against the Liberals and the 9th Circuit will be tremendous.

    I think that if some dorks challenge this EO then the administration should seek a quick review by the Supreme Court and stop all the dorking around in district court and the 9th Circuit.

    I believe that the new EO is consistent with the Constitution and the statutes in place giving the Executive the power to police the borders.

    We need to discuss the Korematsu decision from the WWIII days. U.S. citizens who were born here but who were of Japanese origin were put in concentration camps. That Supreme Court decision is still law.

    1. Unless you know something we don’t know WWIII is still i the future. The dorking is part of something called Checks and balances. It seeks to prevent knee jerk decisions leading to hasty deployments and creating a worse problem than before. The draft led to directly to Calley and Medina.

    2. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship.

      1. Prior to discussion comes research.

      From Wikpedia

      Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship.

      In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government,[2] ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. Six of eight Roosevelt appointees sided with Roosevelt. The lone Republican appointee, Owen Roberts, dissented. The opinion, written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu’s individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. (The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, adding, “The provisions of other orders requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding.”) During the case, Solicitor General Charles Fahy is alleged to have suppressed evidence by keeping from the Court a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence indicating that there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies or sending signals to enemy submarines.[3]

      The decision in Korematsu v. United States has been controversial.[2] Korematsu’s conviction for evading internment was overturned on November 10, 1983, after Korematsu challenged the earlier decision by filing for a writ of coram nobis. In a ruling by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the writ (that is, it voided Korematsu’s original conviction) because in Korematsu’s original case, the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the Supreme Court’s decision.

      The Korematsu decision has not been explicitly overturned,[4] although, in 2011, the Department of Justice filed an official notice[5] conceding that the then Solicitor General’s defense of the internment policy had been in error. However, the Court’s opinion remains significant, both for being the first instance of the Supreme Court applying the strict scrutiny standard to racial discrimination by the government, and for being one of only a handful of cases in which the Court held that the government had met that standard. Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus’s “Anti-Canon”,[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as “an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry”[7] and as “a stain on American jurisprudence.”[9] Feldman summarized the present view of the case as: “Korematsu’s uniquely bad legal status means it’s not precedent even though it hasn’t been overturned.”[8]”

      2. The lone Republican and two Democrats dissented .

      Full case name Fred Korematsu vs. United States
      Citations 323 U.S. 214 (more)
      65 S. Ct. 193; 89 L. Ed. 194; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1341
      Prior history Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
      Holding
      The exclusion order leading to Japanese American Internment was constitutional.
      Court membership
      Chief Justice
      Harlan F. Stone
      Associate Justices
      Owen J. Roberts · Hugo Black
      Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
      William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
      Robert H. Jackson · Wiley B. Rutledge
      Case opinions
      Majority Black, joined by Stone, Reed, Douglas, Rutledge, Frankfurter
      Concurrence Frankfurter
      Dissent Roberts
      Dissent Murphy
      Dissent Jackson
      Laws applied
      Executive Order 9066; U.S. Const. amend. V

      3. Notice 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A long history of ……something.

      4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

      For the Concurrences and Dissents.

  5. One thing is 100% certain. Once Trump is proven to be right yet again–this time on his wiretap claims, the media will totally ignore it and move on to something else to attack Trump with.

    The Juan Thompson case is a perfect example of that. Before the public learned that Juan Thompson was behind the bomb threats against many Jewish Community Centers and organizations, the media was hot to claim that Trump was responsible for those threats because he created an environment of anti-Semitism, racism, misogyny, islamophobia, and you name it, and the media went to great lengths to also blame Trump’s supporters as likely behind the bomb threats. The media knowingly lied about that, of course, and continues to lie.

    When President Trump suggested that the “reverse” could be true–i.e., that someone or some group could be using hate to conveniently pin the blame on him, thanks to the hard work of the media in spreading those lies. In effect, he suggested that the perpetrator(s) could well turn out to be in opposition to him. Of course, the media went after Trump with a vengeance after making those statements, calling him a “kook,” “paranoid,” “conspiracy theorist,” etc.

    Fast forward a couple of days after Juan Thompson was caught, and, suddenly, the media is completely silent on the subject–like it never happened; like it never existed at all. And why the silence? Because President Trump was 100% correct. Again! Juan Thompson is a member of the very same leftist fake news lamestream media presstitutes that they are! Thompson wanted to punch out Trump, just like Robert De Niro did, and believed that Trump needed to be “taken out” along with his supporters–just like the mainstream media promotes.

    And who created Juan Thompson? Why, he is the product of our “social justice” colleges, those bastions of free speech and liberty–as long as it conforms with the leftist agenda. I’m talking about colleges, like Vassar, which is an incubator of future leftists working to destroy America and all that its stands for. Here’s Juan Thompson telling you his own story:

    1. Funny thing, though, Vassar itself took down its original commercial featuring their proud student, so someone had to dig this up. I wonder why Vassar would be ashamed of this commercial? It seems to me to be the perfect tribute to its leftist anti-America, anti-Israel agenda.

    2. Ralph – that’s true. The Left has gone totally bananas with blaming Trump for everything. You would think that anti-semitism did not exist at all prior to Trump, when in fact the far Left is becoming openly anti-Semitic, and pro-Palestinian. An example is BLM, which considers Palestinians akin to African Americans under the evil oppressors of the US and Israelis. I would be surprised if Juan Thompson, as a far Leftist, didn’t support BLM.

      I predicted to my family that at least some of the bomb threats were going to turn out to be an anti-Trumper. People on social media were breathlessly passing around how Trump emboldened racists and anti-Semites to make those threats. And when it came out about Juan Thompson, they went absolutely silent. I think they went to a retreat to get brainwashed so they could forget about it, and go back to blaming Trump.

      We don’t know yet who made the rest of those threats. It could be a Richard Spencer type, or it could be more Progressive anarchists trying to overthrow Trump’s government. If some of these naive people really think that Trump is as bad as Hitler, how far would they go? Would they call in bomb threats to Jewish schools to make it look like hate crimes were on the rise, and blame Trump? Will they do worse? This is what political bullying and hatred looks like, and it’s ugly. I hope it stops and we become tolerant of political differences.

    3. How can you disprove a negative?

      Something has to exist in order for it to be proven or disproven.

      I hope the house does indeed open up an investigation. I then hope that same investigation leads to impeachment charges.

  6. I appreciate Jonathan Turley’s detailed analysis of the new EO. But the fact remains that even with the “best lawyering,” the EO will inevitably end up back in the Ninth Circuit. That means that the odds of legitimate jurists being on the review panel are very slim indeed, due to the perverse composition of the Ninth, majority of which are juristitutes, not jurists. That is, the facts and the law will take a back of the bus priority, and politics will be the sole basis of their decision. And the politics will necessarily be Elite Establishment and the agenda that goes with it–i.e., one world government, open borders, increased importation of terrorism, increased crime, social strife, increased chaos, etc.

  7. The problem here is that this is still the work of an unbalanced mind. DDT is still playing a role instead of doing the job. It doesn’t matter where an applicant comes from. The issue is the vetting which reveals the circumstances. If a well deserving and in danger person comes from the wrong country it shouldn’t matter. The vetting system should be at a level of competence to determine the result(s). If this asinine approach to a problem, that will need ever increasing scrutiny and ever responding fine tuning, lowers the scrutiny level on a so called safe country and a terrorist gets in, then, of course, it will all be the fault of Obama. DDT was under fire because of accusations of cooperation with the Russians and Russian hacking, so, all of a sudden DDT tweets that Obama bugged his digs. This works with the dupes that elected this idiot.

    This is 90% bluster by the Buffoon in Chief. Commies under the bed, the red menace, the game continues. Now, DDT will authorize another increase in military spending. As long as the clown can keep our attention focused he won’t appear as stupid as he is.

    1. An “unbalanced mind” is someone who OBSESSES on another person. Just sayn’.

        1. anon – if I found out that somebody ‘bugged’ my phones and was now training operatives to fight me, I sure as hell would keep a close eye on them.

          1. Paul,

            Maybe Next close was referring to someone else. Clever, it seems that the OaP fits that description to a T,

          1. mespo, Many believe this is when Trump decided to run for Prez. Obama didn’t have a father and doesn’t know how to act like a man. One thing my old man taught me was to be careful whose balls you bust.

      1. Jus sayn’

        It also depends upon whom one is obsessed. Your obsession with Obama over the years certainly points to a list to starboard, a leaky ship, whatever. One can excuse one’s self with the placement of the obsession, the Presidency. So, to some degree, viewed even from the left or your right, we are both excused. However, never before, or recently if that is a life time, has there been such entertainment that should never have made anywhere near the White House. DDT should be on TV where one can turn him off. ‘Turning him off’ being the pivotal point.

        DDT is like an Orwellian mind link that won’t go away, for those that access the ‘News’ and take an interest. My other compatriots in Canada take more interest than most Americans. They find it unnerving and at the same time entertaining. Most are relieved that Trudeau is Prime Minister and that Harper didn’t have an opportunity to embarrass Canada along with DDT. Imagine Mulroney and DDT, just to through in a little levity, or in other words, it could be worse. Americans need to get out of their skins more often, visit another point of view, and look at reality from a distance.

            1. Khzir: Damn, a Trump-made night off on the “Borrowing Our Dead Son’s Heroism Tour.” What ever will we do?

              Ghazala: Oh, shut up, Khzir and just read your pocket Constitution so you’re ready to whip it out at any moment.

              Khzir: Nah, the Q’uran has so much more drama.

              1. Very Trumpian to mock a fallen soldier’s family and particularly so since family happens to be Muslim.

                1. The real mock is using a dead family member’s legacy for personal aggrandizement. Why would dad care if his trip got delayed? Wonder how much dad was to get paid in Toronto? Reflected glory is the dimmest kind.

                2. Did you write the same lines about the SEAL’s wife and particularly becaus the family happened to be…….

                  And that’s where you slammed your head in the wall. Any answer would have been a combination of bigoted, racist and sexist.

                  By mocking you in return maybe we can teach a lesson on not only social conduct but on the social contract.

                3. “Happens to be???” I think their religion means a lot more to them that that.

          1. Is Canada reviewing his travel privileges ?

            Not a story – very possibly a made up story.
            No definition of ” travel privileges provided.
            No definition of what ” reviewing” means.
            No agency, person cited as performing the reviewing
            No agency person cited as the source of the rumor.

        1. “Most are relieved that Trudeau is PM.” LOL! Well, their relief will be short lived. Fidel Trudeau is a short term, vapid, stupid, pretty boy, woman pushing, embarrassment to a once good country. He’s even worse than his feckless father, Castro..err, Pierre or whomever was banging his mother @ the time. That’s a looong list.

          1. I agree with Nick. Trudeau is a joke. The joke is on us though because we share a huge border with those nitwits who will let any Tom Dick or Larry across their borders from Syria et al.

      2. Dang! My first reply went into moderation, sooo let me try it without Adam’s naughty words, which are now []’ed:

        Trump MUST be unbalanced to ease the pressure of IsaacB’s Cognitive Dissonance. It is either that, or IsaacB will have to confront his own problems, the chief of which is that reality shows him to be a lot less smart than he thinks he is.

        Psychologically, he must either face up to his own shortcomings, and get off his high horse, or he must invent some other excuse to to take away from that discomfort. He chooses the easier course and therefore no matter what the argument is, makes Trump out to be an idiot, and a Nazi, and gorilla, etc. This is one of the strongest “tells” for Cognitive Dissonance. Scott Adams explains it thus:

        Personal Attack: A personal attack without reason is among the strongest tells. That means the person being attacked has been so persuasive that it is shaking someone else’s self-image.

        Example:

        Politician: My policies will stimulate the economy. Here is the data proving that this plan worked in every country where it became law.

        Citizen: That guy is a reactionary [a-hole]

        Interpretation: The politician’s argument is so strong that it violates the citizen’s identity as someone that is always on the other side of that particular argument. How can the citizen maintain his old self-image and still feel rational? Cognitive dissonance is triggered and anger comes out.

        False-positive: The politician really is a reactionary {a-hole] with a bad plan.

        http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128267369491/the-tells-for-cognitive-dissonance

        Its a great article and worth reading.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      3. Nick,

        We are in agreement, now how does that work with regards to Trump? He has been obsessed all of his life. I know, I have had business with him.

        1. Do tell a first hand witness with a medical degree. Tell us more….particularly why chose to do business with someone obsessed? Right. Read iyou in the morning Doc!

    2. The capabilities, and the degree of cooperation, of other nations’ intelligence services vary.
      So it DOES matter “where an applicant comes from” in screening applicants.
      The FBI has testified about the difficulty of vetting those from countries lacking adequate records/ intel, and
      some countries with greater intel capabilties are more cooperative than others in assisting the U.S. in sharing information.
      That’s probably a major reason why the Obama administration labeled many of these same nations “countries of concern”.

  8. Stay tune ….

    Each of the seven countries was given a different set of qualifications due to their inherent differences and not one of them shall be forced to pay for the system or non system of any of the others. Iraq was all but taken off the list.

    No country from any other part of the world was mentioned. For the present there current standards shall remain as before however Mexico was singled out in a positive manner.

    Canada was lumped into a no standards country. From what I read those types of countries admitees will have to satisfy the requirements of their home country.

    An expansion of the workers program involving Mexican citizens pertaining to both ‘in country illegals but not criminals and new applicants.

    The real problem with Mexco is left to the Mexican government to correct as it should be.

    All in all a drastic difference adding to it the old news of the ‘wall’ being used in certain specific asreas, be ‘in depth’ including people and technical means and possibly including the military specifically for high crime route areas.

    The Cartels are still targets of opportunity.

    The only thing it didn’t do was redfine ACLU agents of George Soros as Association of Collectively Liberally Undesirables

    The opposite of deplorables.

    Don’t whine I was going to use the BIG C word.

    One had to read more than just the text to get the flavor of the new ruling. It’s far too complex for the likes of Comrade Shumer and Comrade Pelosillyni

  9. The first order was challenged in court and blocked by several judges — if any litigation was pending, does it all simply evaporate with this new release?

    1. (The previous order is now “revoked” but I’m wondering how the process works in consequence.)

  10. If the Order is as if you state, I think nationality will be a low factor. However if the word Muslim appears, then this is no better than the first one. A Muslim is a follower of Islam.

    Hence, if this is the way portrayed then the first order becomes moot. The Supreme Court has already determined that an issue can’t be moot when it’s before them.

    1. The order appears to be less barbaric and less indefensible but I am sure there will be lawsuits. They might not be as successful though.

  11. This from Cloud 9: Trump just emailed his wife that her family can come over and will not be vetted. He went on to say that: “American veternarians will not treat those who are East of Corfu where the Ten Commandments do not apply.”

    1. East of Corfu? I bet all those Romanians practicing the Eastern Rite will be surprised to find out that Moses just brought down the “Ten Suggestions.”

Comments are closed.