https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.4540c87ed053
President Trump is preparing to sign a new executive order Monday that White House officials hope can withstand legal scrutiny in imposing a 90-day ban on U.S. entry for new visa seekers from six majority-Muslim nations, according to a fact sheet the administration sent to Congress.
In addition, the nations refu*gee program will be suspended for 120 days, and it will not accept more than 50,000 refugees in a year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration.
The new guidelines name six of the seven countries included in the first executive order, but it leaves out Iraq. That nation will increase cooperation with the United States on additional security vetting under separate negotiations and its citizens are not subject to the new order, the fact sheet states.
The new order provides other exceptions not contained in previous versions: for travelers from those countries who are legal permanent residents of the United States, dual nationals who use a passport from another country, those attending diplomatic missions, and those who have been granted asylum or refu*gee status. It will attempt to outline a more robust national security justification; the fact sheet said 300 people who entered the country as refugees were currently the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations.
The United States has the worlds most generous immigration system, yet it has been repeatedly exploited by terrorists and other malicious actors who seek to do us harm, the fact sheet stated.
The order, which is to go into effect March 16, represents an attempt by the Trump administration to tighten security requirements for travelers from nations that officials said represent a terrorism threat. A more sweeping attempt in January provoked mass protests across the country as travelers en route to the United States were detained at airports after the surprise order was announced.
A federal district judge in Washington state first suspended the travel ban Feb. 3, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit later upheld that freeze.
That setback was a blow to the White House, which was criticized for failing to include lawmakers and stakeholders in its deliberations.
The revisions to the order will make it more defensible in court limiting the number of people with standing to sue though they might not allay all the concerns raised by judges across the country. The three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, said that exempting green card and current visa holders from the ban would not address their concern about U.S. citizens with an interest in non-citizens travel.
The administration, too, will have to wrestle with comments by the president and top adviser Rudy Giuliani seeming to indicate the intent of the order was to ban Muslims from entering the United States, which could run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
On the campaign trail, Trump called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. After the election, former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said: So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, Muslim ban. He called me up. He said, Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.
A federal judge in Virginia referenced those comments in ordering the ban frozen with respect to Virginia residents and institutions, calling it unrebutted evidence that Trumps directive might violate the First Amendment.
The Department of Homeland Security was preparing to release the order publicly on Monday morning under an embargo. The Washington Post received the documents separately from an immigration lawyer who obtained them from a member of Congress.
The new order drew condemnation from immigrant rights advocates.
The president has said he would ban Muslims, and this revised version in these preliminary fact sheets still does that, even if they have removed Iraq from the list, said Gregory Chen, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. In its oral argument before the 9th Circuit, the government was unable to provide any evidence to the 9th Circuit that acts of terrorism had been committed by the nationals of seven countries initially designated. That was an embarrassment, but now weeks later, in these preliminary fact sheets, they still have not explained why people from these countries pose risk to Americas national security.
President Trump is preparing to sign a new executive order Monday that White House officials hope can withstand legal scrutiny in imposing a 90-day ban on U.S. entry for new visa seekers from six majority-Muslim nations, according to a fact sheet the administration sent to Congress.
In addition, the nations refu*gee program will be suspended for 120 days, and it will not accept more than 50,000 refugees in a year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration.
The new guidelines name six of the seven countries included in the first executive order, but it leaves out Iraq. That nation will increase cooperation with the United States on additional security vetting under separate negotiations and its citizens are not subject to the new order, the fact sheet states.
The new order provides other exceptions not contained in previous versions: for travelers from those countries who are legal permanent residents of the United States, dual nationals who use a passport from another country, those attending diplomatic missions, and those who have been granted asylum or refu*gee status. It will attempt to outline a more robust national security justification; the fact sheet said 300 people who entered the country as refugees were currently the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations.
The United States has the worlds most generous immigration system, yet it has been repeatedly exploited by terrorists and other malicious actors who seek to do us harm, the fact sheet stated.
The order, which is to go into effect March 16, represents an attempt by the Trump administration to tighten security requirements for travelers from nations that officials said represent a terrorism threat. A more sweeping attempt in January provoked mass protests across the country as travelers en route to the United States were detained at airports after the surprise order was announced.
A federal district judge in Washington state first suspended the travel ban Feb. 3, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit later upheld that freeze.
That setback was a blow to the White House, which was criticized for failing to include lawmakers and stakeholders in its deliberations.
The revisions to the order will make it more defensible in court limiting the number of people with standing to sue though they might not allay all the concerns raised by judges across the country. The three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, said that exempting green card and current visa holders from the ban would not address their concern about U.S. citizens with an interest in non-citizens travel.
The administration, too, will have to wrestle with comments by the president and top adviser Rudy Giuliani seeming to indicate the intent of the order was to ban Muslims from entering the United States, which could run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
On the campaign trail, Trump called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. After the election, former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said: So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, Muslim ban. He called me up. He said, Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.
A federal judge in Virginia referenced those comments in ordering the ban frozen with respect to Virginia residents and institutions, calling it unrebutted evidence that Trumps directive might violate the First Amendment.
The Department of Homeland Security was preparing to release the order publicly on Monday morning under an embargo. The Washington Post received the documents separately from an immigration lawyer who obtained them from a member of Congress.
The new order drew condemnation from immigrant rights advocates.
The president has said he would ban Muslims, and this revised version in these preliminary fact sheets still does that, even if they have removed Iraq from the list, said Gregory Chen, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. In its oral argument before the 9th Circuit, the government was unable to provide any evidence to the 9th Circuit that acts of terrorism had been committed by the nationals of seven countries initially designated. That was an embarrassment, but now weeks later, in these preliminary fact sheets, they still have not explained why people from these countries pose risk to Americas national security.