m44

<deleted by moderator>.
There was never in history as extreme vetting of immigrant visas normal visas and even US citizens as established after 9/11 by Bush and Obama!
<deleted by moderator>.
Boarder ban is not a solution for better vetting - <deleted by moderator>.
After you get the immigrant visa your immigration is the RIGHT, not just a privilege.

TWA884

OK, we are once again venturing into OMNI/PR territory.

Please take your political commentaries there (access to OMNI is restricted to members who have been on FlyerTalk for 180 days and posted 180 messages).

Thank you,

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

lonelycrowd

Sounds like the administration really sees value in restarting a "ban" on certain categories rather than simply jumping ahead to the "extreme vetting" that they've promised to implement in 72 days or so, going by the original 90-day countdown announced in the 1/27 order. Is there any information (speculation?) on when we might get a sense of who they're going to come after on the new order? Last Friday I was under the impression that we'd have a new order announced by today at the latest, though I don't see anything that looks like this on today's White House schedule.

This uncertainty is really placing a lot of stress on my family, as I'm sure it is for other blacklisted applicants with March appointment dates...

JoeBas

Yup, the fact is that they could still be implementing their "Extreme Vetting" scheme to be completed within the 90 days of the original ban, rendering the entire rationale behind the proposed ban invalid.

Of course, that would render the entire rational behind the proposed ban invalid... ... ...

Section 107

The above statement shows a misunderstanding of what a visa is. A visa is merely documentary evidence of permission having been granted to travel to a point of entry into the United States to then request admission into the United States under the specified conditions of the visa. Just as permission can be granted it can be rescinded. There is no "right" to the visa. Nor does the visa grant a right to admission. Admission into a country is subject to an entirely different review and determination.

In the US, the only "right" that attaches to the permission is that of due process - i.e., once the permission has been given, the government must follow its process in rescinding the permission - it cannot just be arbitrarily taken away.

GUWonder

I wouldn't be so sure that due process is the only right that attaches to some or all immigrant visas. Even for some non-immigrant visas, I wouldn't be all that sure.

edyang

While I feel for Persians who are currently caught up in this situation, <deleted by moderator>. They have and are one of the largest state sponsors of terrorist groups. Perhaps they should be less concerned about our immigration policies and more concerned about getting their own internal house in order. <deleted by moderator>.

Where I live, SoCal, we have a large and vibrant Persian population. But be that as it may, Iran is our geopolitical enemy...both in word and deed. Entry and immigration to America is not a global right. It is a national privilege.

GUWonder

Guilty by "association" with a country invites a ban? No thank you.

Note that the EO didn't place a ban on citizens of Russia. Nor would I have it that ordinary Russian citizens -- dual or otherwise -- with US residency rights and/or US immigration or non-immigration visiting rights/allowances -- be banned merely because of the actions of the Russian government or other Russian elements with whom many Russians with US travel allowances may not even necessarily identify with beyond having a nationality/ethnic/ethno-religious connection in common.

lonelycrowd

I'm still getting a feel for what is "policy debate" and what is OMNI/PR, so I'll try to respond as delicately as possible. There's a lot here, much of which is predicated on perceptions of events that are subject to debate in policy circles, so I'll focus on what I'm reading as the main arguments - that the blanket ban is a useful political tool in dealing with Iran, and that private interests in immigration matters are outweighed by the President's policy priorities.

If I'm reading correctly, you seem to be advancing a novel argument that a blanket ban was actually intended to be part of an unofficial tit-for-tat realpolitik - that we are trying to constrain Iran by preventing its detractors and intellectuals from exiting the country. While Iran's government may prefer that those individuals who are applying for visas to study and live abroad go ahead and leave for internal stability reasons, in reality I suspect that most of those individuals are simply going to choose third countries. Moreover, as was the case with the VWP enhancements, such motivations for a ban could be interpreted as a violation of the JCPOA's provision that the US should not impede Iran's entry into world markets.

If we're really going down this road, we should be prepared to dismiss the argument that our issues have never been with the Persian people, as it is clearly people who are not big fans of the Islamic Republic rather than government officials who are getting hit by this. I don't believe our career diplomats really want to take our public diplomacy in this direction, but I could be wrong.

The vice-provost of my university was recently discussing his fear of a broad crackdown on student and faculty visas in coming months - not to mention rumored "enhancements" to OPT and the H1-B program. The University cannot override the judgment of State or DHS in any particular immigration case, no mater how compelling our private interest in bringing a particular student or professor. But if there's a perception that coming here is not worth the hassle or that policy is being made in an arbitrary fashion, the "national privilege" you cite inflicts real harm on our institution and I know that our federal relations office is planning to ensure that lawmakers hear our concerns.

yosithezet

My ex-wfie is Persian, we met, married and had children in Israel. Her brother is part of that SoCal Irangeles enclave. Both Jewish Iranians. Her brother crossed the border into Pakistan to escape Iran and eventually arrived in the US. Refugee. These are the people that should be kept out of the US because the Iranian gov't is a geopolitical enemy of the US?

Xyzzy

N! Entry and immigration and being a place of safety and refuge is one of the foundations upon which the entire nation is based.

edyang

The simple reason is the EO was based on the 7 terrorist hotspots that the Obama Administration identified as the top priorities.

Sure, after we carefully make sure the people we let us do not want to do us harm. The priority of the government first and foremost is the safety of the American citizens, not world citizens.

It's a 90 day pause, not a permanent ban.

Xyzzy

We were already doing that. D you have any idea what the current multi-year process involves? The whole ban/pause is a sham bit of grandstanding to make it look like Mr. T. is doing something when he actually has no clue what might be wrong/broken or what he wants to do.

edyang

Lengthy times stuck in bureaucracy shouldn't be confused with effective vetting. The wife of the San Bernadino killer had social media messages that supported ISIS. Somehow that slipped by the process. The FBI admits in October 2015 that there's no way to thoroughly screen refugees. And finally, many of those 7 nations have no functioning government like Yemen. With no functioning government, there's pretty much no way to confirm background checks.

JoeBas

It's clear that the current process WASN'T WORKING. Just look at the extensive list of terrorist attacks by people from these countries, pasted below for your convenience.