Trump’s Not a Travel Ban EO (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,342
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
The EO Trump signed yesterday that is being described as a “travel ban” is really just an immigration ban.

It is limiting immigrant visas, not nonimmigrant visas. People from those countries can still travel to the US just as easily as they could a week ago. B, F, H1B’s... none of these are restricted for at least some of the countries on the list based on the text of the order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...bilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry/

Nigeria, for example.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Nigeria as immigrants, except as Special Immigrants whose eligibility is based on having provided assistance to the United States Government, is hereby suspended.

This is not about safety. It is about reducing immigration. There isn’t any valid argument that reducing only immigrant visa’s while allowing non immigrant visas enhances our security.

This will definitely be overturned by the courts.

US citizens whose immediate relatives are being denied immigrant visas will be filing lawsuits nonstop.
 

DJ1BigTymer

Yo! We got some hats now...
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
312
Reaction score
413
Age
48
Location
New Orleans
Offline
This temporary ban is looking like a permanent ban. Guess they still haven't figured out "what's going on?" yet. Any word on how the "extreme vetting process" is working for them?
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
1,369
Location
Nashville
Offline
The EO Trump signed yesterday that is being described as a “travel ban” is really just an immigration ban.

It is limiting immigrant visas, not nonimmigrant visas. People from those countries can still travel to the US just as easily as they could a week ago. B, F, H1B’s... none of these are restricted for at least some of the countries on the list based on the text of the order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...bilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry/

Nigeria, for example.




This is not about safety. It is about reducing immigration. There isn’t any valid argument that reducing only immigrant visa’s while allowing non immigrant visas enhances our security.

This will definitely be overturned by the courts.

US citizens whose immediate relatives are being denied immigrant visas will be filing lawsuits nonstop.
The EO gives a rationale for the differnece:
EO said:
I have prioritized restricting immigrant visa travel over nonimmigrant visa travel because of the challenges of removing an individual in the United States who was admitted with an immigrant visa if, after admission to the United States, the individual is discovered to have terrorist connections, criminal ties, or misrepresented information. Because each of the six additional countries identified in the January 2020 proposal has deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal, or identity information, there is an unacceptable likelihood that information reflecting the fact that a visa applicant is a threat to national security or public safety may not be available at the time the visa or entry is approved.
Do you think it is true that it is easier to remove a nonimmigrant visa holder vs. an immigrant visa holder?
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
1,369
Location
Nashville
Offline
This temporary ban is looking like a permanent ban. Guess they still haven't figured out "what's going on?" yet. Any word on how the "extreme vetting process" is working for them?
Did you read the link? They have altered the initial ban based on progress countries have made implementing the systems for investigation and verification. It appears, for example, that Chad has been completely removed from the travel ban.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #5
OP

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,342
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
The EO gives a rationale for the differnece:


Do you think it is true that it is easier to remove a nonimmigrant visa holder vs. an immigrant visa holder?
Not for terrorism grounds of inadmissibility or deportability.

That may be the case for relatively minor crimes for which a waiver is available to people who have an immediate relative who is a citizen.

I can tell you that Nigerians are far more likely to commit fraud on non immigrant visas than immigrant visas. It is not even close. More than half of Nigerians who come on non-immigrant visas overstay their period of admission and end up never leaving the country.

There is no record of Nigerians coming to the US and committing acts of terrorism.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
1,369
Location
Nashville
Offline
Not for terrorism grounds of inadmissibility or deportability.

That may be the case for relatively minor crimes for which a waiver is available to people who have an immediate relative who is a citizen.

I can tell you that Nigerians are far more likely to commit fraud on non immigrant visas than immigrant visas. It is not even close. More than half of Nigerians who come on non-immigrant visas overstay their period of admission and end up never leaving the country.

There is no record of Nigerians coming to the US and committing acts of terrorism.
I had always heard and read that in removal proceedings against permanent residents the burden was on the State. But with temporary residents, the burden was on the immigrant. Is that not true?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #7
OP

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,342
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
I had always heard and read that in removal proceedings against permanent residents the burden was on the State. But with temporary residents, the burden was on the immigrant. Is that not true?
That’s not exactly true.

First, I assume that by temporary resident, you’re referring to a nonimmigrant visitor or worker.

The only official status of “temporary resident” I’m familiar with was during the 1986 amnesty program. You don’t see that status anymore unless it’s someone who started down that path to legalization and didn’t complete it, but they are few and far between.

Once someone has been admitted either as an immigrant or non immigrant, the government has to prove removability. It is true that a permanent resident might have access to forms of relief (certain types of waivers) with the court that a nonimmigrant does not, but inside the US the government always has the same burden of proof.

Outside the US it is a little different. Consular officers can deny a nonimmigrant visa for pretty much any reason and there aren’t really any rights of appeal. They just have to refile for the visa until they get it.

This is just a way to reduce legal immigration hiding behind national security.

The 911 terrorists were all on nonimmigrant visas.
 
Last edited:

DJ1BigTymer

Yo! We got some hats now...
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
312
Reaction score
413
Age
48
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Did you read the link? They have altered the initial ban based on progress countries have made implementing the systems for investigation and verification. It appears, for example, that Chad has been completely removed from the travel ban.
My statement has nothing to do with the "link" and everything to do with trump's justifications for his Muslim ban. He REPEATEDLY claimed that we must find out "what's going on?" so that they implement extreme vetting measures to weed out the thousands of terrorist allowed into our country. Is that not their goal anymore?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Top Bottom