AP source: Trump's revised travel ban targets same countries

[TexasTowelie]

Last edited Sun Feb 19, 2017, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

WASHINGTON A draft of President Donald Trumps revised immigration ban targets the same seven countries listed in his original executive order and exempts travelers who already have a visa to travel to the U.S., even if they havent used it yet.

A senior administration official said the order, which Trump revised after federal courts held up his original immigration and refugee ban, will target only those same seven Muslim-majority countries Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya.

The official said that green-card holders and dual citizens of the U.S. and any of those countries are exempt. The new draft also no longer directs authorities to single out and reject Syrian refugees when processing new visa applications.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the order before its made public. The official noted that the draft is subject to change ahead of its signing, which Trump said could come sometime this week.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/ap-source-trumps-revised-travel-ban-targets-same-countries/2017/02/19/e09c9ab2-f70a-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_story.html?utm_term=.519711475542

[VMA131Marine]

1. So it's still a Muslim ban then?

I don't see how this survives a court challenge either.

[mpcamb]

10. !9 out of 21 of the 9/11 perps were from Sauidi Arabia. Any ban there?

[VMA131Marine]

23. Forget it! We sell too much military equipment to the House of Saud

..to ever seriously try to get them to behave better.

[thesquanderer]

2. re: "federal courts held up his original immigration and refugee ban"

"held up" is an ambiguous phrase in this context.

[Equinox Moon]

3. Wonder for how long?

The first one was for 90 days (I think).

If he was a real president, he would give a coherent speech to the public explaining what this order is and reasons behind it. I realize that is not going to happen.

I would assume this new order is cleaner, but still objectionable. We didn't need it just one week prior under Obama. What changed?

[Blue Idaho]

4. Sadly Trump thinks the element of surprise

Is one key to his tremendous success as president so far...

[Equinox Moon]

6. Oh, that's right,

shock the hell out people is his strategy. Booooooo...

[Blue Idaho]

7. That's strategery...

He learnt it from W...

[napi21]

5. What I've read so far nothing was mentioned about exempting Christians. IMO

THAT'S a big reason the judge ruled the first EO unconstitutional. If that is still part of this new EO, this one will be shot down as well.

[cstanleytech]

9. If its almost the exact same wording it could still be shot down by the courts especially if the

court refuses to buy the bs excuse of it being done for reasons of national security or atleast without something more to support the reason.
Plus what about the people that were turned away with green card? Could they sue for civil damages for things like lost air fare, wages and other things?

[TexasTowelie]

12. Not likely,

sovereign immunity will be used to deny any claims for monetary damages.

[cstanleytech]

15. What about the Federal Tort Claims Act? Surely Trump is considered a federal employee isnt he?

[TexasTowelie]

16. I'm not an attorney, but I think that FTCA applies to bodily injury claims.

In addition, "The FTCA exempts, among other things, claims based upon the performance, or failure to perform a "discretionary function or duty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

Of course a lawsuit can be filed for just about anything, but getting a payment because someone is somehow inconvenienced is another issue entirely. I doubt that there are provable damages in the amount that any attorney would be willing to take the case.

[iluvtennis]

18. Didn't 9th circuit court say there had to be merits on threat to natl security, not just Trumps word

[Honeycombe8]

22. No, that wasn't the reason.

I read the District Court's order. That lawsuit was filed by businesses, who claimed the ban violated their rights in that it stopped workers with visas coming in, and they relied on those workers for their businesses. They had employees, actually, who would travel to/from those countries with visas, or maybe green cards.

The District Court found that the EO would affect the plaintiffs' rights too much, to do an EO this fast and this broad, without studying it or something, and the fact that it included visas and green cards (though the W.H. later tried to deny that).

So this EO has removed those objectionable parts....no visas or green cards, and people with visas already aren't included in the ban.

I didn't see anything referencing the religious part. That may be because the Court didn't need to go there, since it found in favor of the plaintiffs on the first point?

[Blue Idaho]

8. So it's the same... only different...

But really it's the same...

[uppityperson]

11. I wonder if it will say, like the last one, that the order is not reviewable, that what the

Pres says goes, with no oversight or possibility of interpreting the law by the judicial branch.

[agalisgv]

13. It's like a recurring nightmare

how do we get of this mad man's merry-go-round?

[Honeycombe8]

14. This one might pass the Court's objections.

The District Court's main objection was that it interfered with the visa people, which the plaintiffs said would adversely affect their businesses, since they rely on work visa workers for their companies.

It also sort of follows Obama's temp ban years ago, although Obama's was based on specific intel, and was for only one country (Iraq). There were no exceptions for those who were non-Muslim, so it wasn't a Muslim ban. Obama also didn't include people with visas or green cards.

So it looks like Trump copied Obama's ban. His team has to copy Obama's team's work, huh? Pretty funny.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Except with Obama's E.O.

it was still not a "ban" nor did it halt visas. It slowed them to intensify vetting, which is now standard practice. See this -

<...>

In 2011, the State Department significantly slowed the number of visas it issued to Iraqis in order to review its vetting process. The concern stemmed from the arrests of two Iraqi refugees on terrorism charges in Bowling Green, Kentucky, in 2011. One of the men was linked through fingerprints to an improvised explosive attack in Bayji, Iraq.

The arrests triggered concerns in the administration and on Capitol Hill and led to a massive review of Iraqi refugees already admitted to the country and more extensive vetting of those applying to immigrate to the United States. The action only applied to refugees from Iraq.

<...>

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/30/president-trump-refugee-executive-order-barack-obama/97249540/

I am not finding any overarching "ban" or "pause" of all immigrants from any country in any of Obama's E.O.s.

[pat_k]

17. Predictable.

As noted in previous post, this new Muslim ban will probably hold up. It's my understanding that it was barring existing visa and green card holders from entering the US (and from leaving the US because if they left they couldn't re-enter) that ran afoul of the constitution. It doesn't say so, but I'd guess they also dropped the requirement for state law enforcement agencies to provide resources to implement the ban.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. It may violate the Immigration Act of 1990

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg4978.pdf

Text version - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/101/s358/text

But the Bannon-run WH doesn't believe that laws actually exist that were passed by Congress and signed by a previous President. They prefer to make shit up.

[pat_k]

24. thanks!

[Vinca]

21. Refresh my memory. How many attacks by people from these countries have there been since

the last travel ban was enacted? Zero. Just like the years on end before the travel ban. Zero. This, like Trump's wall that is now a fence, has nothing to do with the safety of the United States and everything to do with pandering to his fan club.