After a botched roll-out in January, President Donald Trump today signed a new version of his executive order to ban immigration to the United States from a number of Muslim-majority countries. The text of the new order removes Iraq from the list of countries affected and makes exceptions for green card holders and dual-citizens of targeted countries.
The order also removes exceptions for religious minorities, targeting en masse the citizens of Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Libya and Somalia. The travel ban will go into effect on March 16th, ten days from its signing. At a press conference announcing the revised order, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the new measure will “bolster the security of the United States and her allies.”
The revised order represents an attempt by the Trump administration to escape the legal challenges that the first order generated when it was released this January. Described by some legal analysts as “a giant birthday present to the ACLU,” the original order was almost immediately tied up in the courts. It also generated widespread protests in the United States, as activists turned out to airports to demand the release of individuals being detained or denied entry to the country. A court in Seattle ultimately issued a restraining order against the ban on the grounds that it was likely unconstitutional, terminating its applicability nationwide and fatally undermining attempts to turn it into law.
Despite a few modest revisions, there is little to indicate that the order signed today is different in intent. Trump’s own surrogates have publicly stated that it is intended to be effectively identical to the much-derided order signed in January. Steven Miller, a senior adviser to the president, described it as “the same, basic policy outcome for the country.” In a statement issued today the ACLU said that the revised order “shares the same fatal flaws” as the original one, adding that “the only way to actually fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban.”
Despite the fact that Trump campaigned for the presidency on a promise of banning Muslims from the country, the administration has pushed back against claims that its executive order is discriminatory, describing it instead as a national security measure. But a Department of Homeland Security report leaked to the press last week threw cold water on that argument, saying that “citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist intent,” and finding that “few of the impacted countries have terrorist groups that threaten the West.”
A recent study by the Cato Institute has also found that people from countries targeted by the ban “have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015.” Legal advocates say the executive order has nothing to do with national security and is designed solely to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.
“This is still a Muslim ban, you don’t change the intent of an order simply by editing the language and re-releasing it,” said Abed Ayoub of the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. “If you look at Trump’s own statements and the statements of his surrogates, it’s clear that this policy has been motivated from the beginning by anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-immigrant sentiment.”
According to the text of the order, government agencies will now be mandated to collect data on immigrants to the United States who engage in gender-based violence like “honor killings” or who have been “radicalized after entry” into the country. This type of ethno-religious reporting on criminal activity has drawn criticism for being similar to policies pursued by xenophobic and authoritarian governments in the past.
The new order also puts draconian restrictions on U.S. refugee policy. Although the text of the revised order removes a specific ban on Syrian refugees, it freezes all refugee resettlement for 120 days and caps annual acceptance numbers at 50,000 per year, less than half the current figure. Immigration policy experts say these revisions will effectively ban many refugees from the United States, and not just Syrians.
“Changing the cap from the current 110,000 admissions to 50,000 is going to be extremely detrimental to not only Syrian refugees, but also other refugee populations suffering around the world,” said Kristie De Pena, immigration policy counsel at the Niskanen Center.
The international community is currently grappling with the largest refugee crisis since World War II and the U.S. decision to take a hard line against refugees is likely to impact the policies of other countries, too. De Pena adds that the 120-day freeze on acceptances will have major negative consequences even if it is eventually lifted. Many refugees who have been approved for resettlement have received security clearances that will expire during the period of the ban, forcing them to start the process again from the beginning.
Ayoub of the ADC adds that his organization views the new order as part of a broader strategy by the administration to restrict access to the United States for immigrants, including but not exclusive to, Arabs and Muslims.
“It’s important that we keep the pressure and focus on this. Even though the words have changed the intent is the same,” Ayoub said. “This is all part of a larger anti-immigrant policy that we’re seeing from this administration. Just as it is important to keep in mind their intentions, it’s important to contest this measure as part of a larger strategy.”
Top photo: Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a news conference about issues related to a reconstituted travel ban at the U.S. Customs and Borders Protection headquarters, on March 6, 2017 in Washington, as Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson look on.
Not a “Muslim ban”.
Stop using false and misleading inflammatory language to further your personal political agendas. You are, allegedly, a journalist for goodness sake. Act like it. Report facts without bias and where possible present apposing viewpoints.
The term “Muslim ban” is both linguistically and logically false in this context. You should know that.
not covered by the “muslim ban” are the literally hundreds of millions of muslims who don’t live in Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Somalia
I can’t take your premise seriously when you insist on labeling the temporary travel ban a “Muslim Ban.” It is not a Muslim Ban and calling it such is partisan hyperbole. It seems prudent to stop immigration from these 7 countries at least temporarily until the President is convinced that adequate security measures are in place. After all, he is responsible for national security.
It seems prudent to stop immigration from these 7 countries at least temporarily until the President is convinced that adequate security measures are in place.
So, because the president is a coward who is unconvinced that our security measures are adequate even though multiple studies show that these people are no threat to us, we need to do this? How foolish and wasteful.
After all, he is responsible for national security.
His oath of office says nothing about national security. It does, however, specifically address the Constitution. You, and he, should take a class on that since eight grade civics seems to have been avoided – or forgotten – in the wake of specious fears of things not in evidence.
Trump should redraw the order to limit immigration to those nationalities that comprised 2% of the population of the United States as of the US Census of 1890. This rule was in effect for 40 years and the Courts had no problem with it.
8 U.S. Code § 1152 – Numerical limitations on individual foreign states
If only we hadn’t started making refugees way back in Iraq slaughter #1.
PLEASE
write an article about what the countries of
Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Somalia
have in common in their relationships with the faking U$A
and
what the Muslim nations which are NOT on this list
have in common in their relations with the faking U$A.
Since some other Muslim nations have produced people who have
attacked within the faking U$A, why are they not on this bogus list?
Don’t get me wrong. I think these lists are vile manipulations.
The reason for this ban is not so much anti-muslim because it does
not apply to the vast majority of muslims.
There is some other reason for this sick game and usually
privatized capital and militarism are behind the schemes
coming from the faking U$A.
Your comment is right on the money. This is not a “Muslim ban”, it is right in line with the geopolitical agenda of Obama and Bush and the Clinton-era PNAC. These are all countries that the U.S. has either attacked directly, or is supporting covert or overt regime change in (Sudan being something of an outlier, perhaps). Dozens of other countries with large Muslim populations are excluded, from Indonesia to Bangladesh to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Morocco to Britain.
It’s probably more about propaganda to get the American public to support regime change in these countries than anything else, just as Iraq under Saddam was falsely accused of supporting global terrorism and hiding nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs; and this is not unique to Trump as those were also the countries fingered by Obama.
I think you’re giving Trump to much credit for actually speculating that his administration has any sort of foresight or planning.
It’s a Muslim ban due to it indefinite length of time and how it clearly identifies Muslims. The EO allows POTUS to place countries onto a list. Just because he has yet put them on the list doesn’t mean it’s not a Muslim ban.
E.g. A person can be a racist without having to express racial animosity to everyone in the targeted class.
So, what you are saying is that the Trump administration has
no connection to the policies of previous administrations AND
that there is no other possible motivation for selecting
these six nations other than incompetence.
Your smug dismissal of an accurate assessment by
“photosymbiosis” leads me to suspect that you would
fit right in with the Bush, Obama, Trump versions of corruption.
How “exceptional!”
First, if you think I’m being smug, the you’re reading too much into my comment. It certainly was not intended that way.
Secondly, the only connection Trump administration has to prior administration seems to be that they use any of their actions to link to in order to claim consistency. Their motivations are clear. They have consistently stated a desire to in fact, ban Muslims.
Third, DHS has issued/leaked a report stating this policy will not address security.
Lastly, just because someone disagrees with any particular comment of another, you can’t assign any particular political attitude. You’re completely wrong headed and short sighted making such a rash conclusion on one statement of mine.
Addendum
The Trump administration in just 45+ days has had 1 cabinet position resign due to scandal, the AG recuse himself, a botched Muslim ban order that needed to be rewritten because they NEVER even considered green card holders and other issues.
Yet now, you and Photo ascribe to them some miraculous alternative strategy for events in the future when the Trump administration can’t even put out the same coherent message from various surrogates.
Really?
The idea that this administration is moving in any coherent way is IMHO not believable.
That you refuse to consider the possibility of a continuum
between the administrations is indeed based in a smugness
which reflects a common form of willful ignorance in the
faking U$A. The assumption that this smarmy act by the
Trump criminals is primarily a unique ban on muslims is rendered
blatantly ridiculous if one opens their eyes beyond the
DC approved establishment message and sees that
the vast majority of muslims DO NOT live in the nations
which are being restricted AND that most of the attackers who have
operated under the guise of Islam within the faking U$A have
come from other nations which have been protected and
supplied with weapons by democrats and republicans alike.
You dismiss history in favor of the approved DC message and
however COMMON that dismissal may be does NOT mean
that the message does not reek of smugness.
In fact it is the opposite.
I do find it hard to believe that UAE (where Trump’s sons just concluded a large golf-and-hotel business deal, very similar to a Clinton Foundation donor deal) or Saudi Arabia (where Trump continues the Obama policy of bombing Yemen) are ever going to end up on that list – nor Indonesia, nor Bangladesh, nor Pakistan, nor Morocco, nor Egypt – all countries with very large Muslim populations.
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-largest-muslim-populations.html
Iran in particular sticks out as a sore thumb in this list (and is by far the main target). This is even though Iran’s cooperation (along with Russia’s) would be critical to actually defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and even though Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been the largest financial sponsors of the Wahabi-Salafist ideology that ISIS has adopted, in which other Muslims can be labeled ‘takfiri’ and killed – basically much like the Spanish Inquisition of medieval Europe.
I don’t think either Trump or Obama supporters like discussing this in any detail, since it points towards a continuation of policy, much as Trump’s crackdown on immigrants is a continuation of ICE policies adopted under Obama – all while corporate agribusiness in the United States remains the biggest employer of undocumented immigrants, as well as a huge donor to both Democrats and Republicans.
There’s something very strange about this public confrontation, while the underlying policies remain relatively unchanged. Dissociation from reality in the propaganda circus of the American media?
Totally agree with you here. But this isn’t cognizant of some overall strategy. It’s merely protecting his financial interests, which I’ve stated during the campaign. I think he’ll totally misuse government resources to protect his personal global financial interests.
But you also have to recognize that 50% or more of his administration has never put together any public policy or had any history of public service.
Iran has been a target of every US administration since the overthrow of the Shaw. There’s nothing new to that with respects to this EO.
So, question to you: Trump wants better relations with the Russians. How does regime change fit into that political calculus with respects to Iran? Starting a war with Iran would seem to go against Trump’s desire for better US-Russian relations since the Russian support Iran.
If regime change is the goal of the administration in the countries named in the Muslim ban order, how do you explain Iraq being on the list?
Isn’t the government there a US installed government? Are you saying the Trump administration wants to reconquer the Iraqi government?
And please don’t use the excuse that it was a mistake, because you’re the one ascribing forethought and planning on their part, not me.
Iraq’s now off the list; but yes, the ban could be interpreted as Trump playing to his xenophobic base of support that is anti-Muslim. However, I don’t believe it was the xenophobes that got Trump elected, but rather Rust Belt states hit by neoliberal economic policies set up by establishment Democrats and Republicans.
I imagine it was more like a Trump-Bannon meeting that went “Let’s tighten up immigration policy in a public manner, what have we got to go on? Here’s this list of suspect Muslim nations, let’s go with that.”
That would be a continuation of Obama foreign policy agendas, which are Deep State foreign policy agendas, which are really all about continuation of the massive military-industrial budget. Trump proposed boosting that budget by $54 billion, but that might go more to the Pentagon than to State and CIA. Certainly Mattis would like that; and Rex Tillerson at State, well, that’s just ExxonMobil at State, no doubt about that.
But you’re probably right that there’s no long term plan anymore, it’s all gone to pieces; internal factional fighting is now the dominant theme inside the Borg.
Nobody says it is unconstitutional
And shouldn’t the Intercept start firing all of these racist affirmative action hires? One of them has just been convicted of terrorism
Simply put, there is no constitutional way to implement an unconstitutional order. That is the upshot of Robart’s ruling.
This is talking through one’s hat since there was no judgment from the 9th District describing Trump’s EO as unconstitutional. The merits of the case were not argued, only described. This was a temporary restraing order.
The commenter said no one is calling it unconstitutional. The commenter was “talking through one’s hat.”
Umm, which one would that be, Joe?
And by the way, I say that disfavoring people because of religion is unconstitutional, no matter how you try to disguise your intent, and I guarantee that there will be a long list of constitutional lawyers joining that argument, followed by a list of federal judges agreeing.
I also assert that it is illegal to discriminate in immigration matters based upon citizenship, national origin or place of residence. Expect the same support and same results ad detailed above.
I didn’t intend for all of that to be in bold, but it does make the points stand out rather starkly.
And I’m waiting for you to tell us which former TI staffer “has been convicted of terrorism.” As is usual with the claims of terminally-confused, I’m expecting a long wait.
“I also assert that it is illegal to discriminate in immigration matters based upon citizenship, national origin or place of residence.”
No, it’s not.
That is false. he’s been arrested and charged for a long series of harassing behaviors agasint a former girlfriend, actions which included making bomb threats in her name, as well as his (so he could claim SHE was setting HIM up). He’s mentally unstable stalker and fabulist.
And how obscenely racist of you to dismiss Murtaza Hussain as an “affirmative action hire.” His fine journalism before he arrived here is why he was hired. (Not that I always agree with him; on anything touching on Syria I find him insufferable.)
As for you bizarre claim that no one’s called the Muslim ban “unconstitutional,” I see Doug and Kitt have addressed that more than adequately, so I’ll leave that to them.
sorry but he is a terrorist
I’m assuming all their muslim affirmative action hires also support terrorism
You are disgusting. Facts are irrelevant to you; they can’t be allowed to interfere with your racist imperatives. Juan Thompson is charged with “cyber-stalking.”
The best response to things like this was written over 200 years ago by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Go read the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to find out what our Founding Fathers thought about restrictions on immigration.
I wonder if Bannon has given any thought to the plight of his fellow churchmen fleeing ISIL in Syria.. what am I thinking? Of course not! They are just props for him and his brain-dead Trumperdoodle to chew on.
I think these details matter. I don’t think that it is unconstitutional for the U.S. to say “wait a minute, if we have a limit (any limit) on the number of people allowed to immigrate, why don’t we have them come from countries like ours.” But it was absolutely unprofessional to revoke valid visas, or fail to honor permanent residency pledges, because ‘the government changed its mind’. Nor, of course, should any US citizen ever have been subject to detention without the usual constitutional protections. With these alterations Trump has fixed the majority of the problems with the old order – we’ll have to see how the details play out.
The idea that it targets Muslims … has a common-sense truth to it but not a legal truth. To give an example, think of the old days when New York was stunned by the level of street crime in Harlem. If they had made a rule to stop and frisk black people on the street, or one interpreted that way, that should be rejected as unconstitutional. But if they made a rule putting more cops on the street in certain neighborhoods, or even banning bars in precincts with a high crime rate from staying open past 9 pm, that wouldn’t have been unconstitutional – even if it were driven by lurid stories about black muggers on the news every night.
And even if it did target Muslims — I don’t think it makes sense to apply the same nondiscrimination standards to foreign relations as we would apply toward foreign nationals once given permission to enter the country. I mean, the U.S. fawns over Israel on account, in large part, of silly millennarians who favor them for religious beliefs – can you sue to cut Israel’s aid to the same level as that given to Muslim countries. (Though, it is tempting…)
That would have been a rather odd notion to the Framers since, when they wrote the Constitution, the world was a little short on “countries like ours.”
Never the less, you’re right. It’s not unconstitutional. It’s “merely” a violation of federal law.
That’s from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (aka “Hart-Celler”). It’s intent was to reverse many decades of shameful discrimination based upon origin.
Here’s the story in simple English:
Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal
The immigration order does not target Muslims. It targets countries. Those countries happen to be majority Muslim nations. The President’s political opponents are using the term Muslim Ban for their own partisan purposes. Unfortunately for them, the majority of the US population is nor as stupid as they used to be and can see through their race-baiting bull.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
If anyone feels compelled to ban people from Muslim countries because of possible terrorist connections, how could you possibly ignore Saudi Arabia. 15 of 19 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian Nationals. There is terribly skewered reasoning at play here. If somehow a banned country list were appropriate, Saudi Arabia should head the list.
I can tell you only read liberal fake news because you missed the point of the law.
It is there because many countries such as Sudan, Syria, Somalia, and so forth do not have any kind of checks on their VISA programs. Saudi Arabia does not have this problem and people issued a VISA from Saudi Arabia are not doing so under a false identity.
So for example the recent Somali terrorist who crashed his car into a crowd and then stabbed a dozen people in Ohio was given a special “child refugee” status despite the fact that he was clearly not a child and was balding already.
The Somalia attacker entered the United states in 2014. He is 18 now, which means he was 16, maybe 15, when he entered.
Thus, he was a child when he entered and your fear mongering statement is false.
Also, a recently leaked DHS report clearly states that people become radicalized AFTER they move to the US, which accounts for the domestic terrorism that has occurred in recent years.
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/03/dhs-report-undermines-president-trumps-travel-ban-most-foreign-born-terrorists-become-radicalized-in-the-u-s/
Link to DHS report saying refugees who come to the US are radicalized AFTER they come to the US, not before. Hence, the Muslim ban is completely ineffectual and impotent.
We have no idea how old he is or even what is name was.
He came in under a false identity
People generally do not go bald at 18
I “had” a encouraging dream…
I awoke, in a dream state, and a voice of an Angel said, “the Whitehouse has roaches!” I turned on the TV and there he was, trump at the Whitehouse. But he appeared to be a gigantic Cockroach. I knew it was him because the giant Cockroach had a face like trump and a blonde hairdo like trump. Along with him, were other roaches with faces of men scampering about praising and worshipping his ego.
Trump the Roach was making a speech at the podium. With fire in his roach eyes, He was saying all kinds of vile hateful things about races, ethnic groups, peoples and blasphemous things about GOD. All of his roach supporters were there cheering him on. There were roaches everywhere at the Whitehouse.
Then Trump the Cockroach said, “All must bow and pay hommage to me or else! Because there is no one, nothing or nobody to dare stop me! Because I’m rich… Because I’m Yuuuuge!” It trouble my spirit within me of what he said.
Then all of a sudden, out of the sky, came a giant enormous “Black Boot”, and it crushed Trump the Cockroach… and all the other roaches scattered. And then there was a silence for about an hour at the Whitehouse.
So I looked closely at the giant boot… and on the side of the boot was written, “The Boot of GOD!”
Then what appeared to be an Angel shouted with a loud voice that thundered, “The Wicked only THINK they got away… but they haven’t!” “Be of good cheer!”
Then all loving, fair-minded and just people and those trump had ridiculed from around the world cheered and praised GOD!
Then I woke up with a smile…
Regards,
A Voice Crying in the Wilderness
I “had” a dream…
I awoke, in a dream state, and a voice of an Angel said, “the Whitehouse has roaches!” I turned on the TV and there he was, trump at the Whitehouse. But he appeared to be a gigantic Cockroach. I knew it was him because the giant Cockroach had a face like trump and a blonde hairdo like trump. Along with him, were other roaches with faces of men scampering about praising and worshipping his ego.
Trump the Roach was making a speech at the podium. With fire in his roach eyes, He was saying all kinds of vile hateful things about races, ethnic groups, peoples and blasphemous things about GOD. All of his roach supporters were there cheering him on. There were roaches everywhere at the Whitehouse.
Then Trump the Cockroach said, “All must bow and pay hommage to me or else! Because there is no one, nothing or nobody to dare stop me! Because I’m rich… Because I’m Yuuuuge!” It trouble my spirit within me of what he said.
Then all of a sudden, out of the sky, came a giant enormous “Black Boot”, and it crushed Trump the Cockroach… and all the other roaches scattered. And then there was a silence for about an hour at the Whitehouse.
So I looked closely at the giant boot… and on the side of the boot was written, “The Boot of GOD!”
Then what appeared to be an Angel shouted with a loud voice that thundered, “The Wicked only THINK they got away… but they haven’t!” “Be of good cheer!”
Then all loving, fair-minded and just people and those trump had ridiculed from around the world cheered and praised GOD!
Then I woke up with a smile…
Regards,
Trump should just ban all immigration, refugees, and visas. Zero discrimination there.
Given that Trump has now rolled back 90 regulations pertaining to Wall Street, coal & oil, and the bombing campaign in Yemen, it seems that he’s using this travel ban and fake wiretapping “scandal” as a distraction for the media. Kind of like an adult giggling keys in front of an infant to distract it from his other activities.
I think removing Iraq from the ban list has more to do with the corporations that are over there stripping out the country’s oil and mineral wealth than anything else. Gosh, I wonder if The Donald has business interests there as well?
no fooling?
like we need more people in the US in addition to the 40 million border crashers since 1975? like we need more people because wallstreet needs growth? like we need H1b employees because Americans cannot afford education – do you know the education costs to students in india and many eu nations? $0.00. America is being trashed out by wallstreet thieves and their pimped out whores and the Donald was voted in to MIX IT UP.
gotta love it.
You say you want to make America great again- why are you not willing to welcome people intending to leave their home countries to come here and stay?
You can argue about the merits of this order, but calling it a Muslim ban is pretty disingenuous. Do you know how many majority muslim Countries exist on earth? This travel ban only applies to 6 of these Countries.
@Tony,
what do you want to call it? let’s see, when the KKK was killing black people left and right, emm, they did not kill ALL of the black people! you think it would be fair to ask? DO YOU KNOW How many black people exists on earth? the KKK only killed a few thousands. your logic states that unless he bans ALL Muslims, its not against Muslims, and in the EO, He’s allowing people of other faiths from those countries to come in. so who’s the ban for again?
Congratulations for winning the most ridiculous comparison of the day. Surprised you just didn’t go for a Nazi analogy first.
It’s a Muslim ban. The EO sets up a precedent that allows the president to add counties to a list that he bans indefinitely.
Although he hasn’t put ALL Muslim countries on the list yet, he’s most likely to do so in the coming years.
The fact that the EO allows other religions is exactly why it’s a Muslim ban. Your logic is backwards. If something allows other religions, but disallows Muslims, the it’s Muslims being banned.
Yeah, he conveniently excludes those countries with his business in them. (And now Iraq, because reasons.)
So it’s more like a “saner-Muslim ban” (not to be confused with a “saner ‘Muslim ban'”, which is the kind that doesn’t exist). Not a whit more comforting nor legal, but ‘ey as long as the so-called President is straddling the Oval and Mar-a-Lago, even that is precious progress…
Once again, I’m not saying you can’t debate the merits. Take a look at a map of the World, see how many Countries are majority Muslim and you will see that this effects a small percent. I don’t want to defend Trump at all but do you really think all Muslim Countries that are not on the list only got excluded because of Trump’s business? That just kind of defies logic. Once again, take a look at a map of the World.
So then what do you make of this>
And
Which religious group did Trump brag about during his campaign , that he would ban?