Executive orders banning entry to US ... [merged threads]
#571
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
The story about why Muslim-majority Chad got blacklisted:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/c...icials-n812166
There is also a story behind the companies whose products are allowed by the US to be used in US-approved foreign passports.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/c...icials-n812166
There is also a story behind the companies whose products are allowed by the US to be used in US-approved foreign passports.
#572
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
My non-gambling bet is that on the advice of counsel so as to try to avoid getting nailed for trying to game the Courts so as to try to continue a “Muslim ban”, the DOJ, DHS and White House have changed policy again and decided that visa issuance of sorts for citizens (and refugees) from all countries will be allowed again. All with a face-saving approach from the Admin using the following kind of language: “special measures” “secret” due to “law enforcement sensitivities”.
The cover offices being State, DHS and DNI.
The cover offices being State, DHS and DNI.
#573
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
The Fourth Circuit will hear an appeal of the Maryland TRO en banc on December 8th.
In other news, the government is fighting to keep more states from joining the Hawaii lawsuit. If GUWonder's theory that the government is planning to settle for some form of enhanced extreme vetting in place of the blanket bans is true, it's remarkable that DOJ is still fighting so hard. (And they're not even getting much recognition in the news media, "fake" or otherwise, for their efforts...)
In other news, the government is fighting to keep more states from joining the Hawaii lawsuit. If GUWonder's theory that the government is planning to settle for some form of enhanced extreme vetting in place of the blanket bans is true, it's remarkable that DOJ is still fighting so hard. (And they're not even getting much recognition in the news media, "fake" or otherwise, for their efforts...)
#574
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
There was a somewhat surprising ruling out of the Ninth Circuit yesterday that limits the scope of the Watson TRO to those meeting the same definition of a bona fide relationship with a US entity that the Supreme Court adopted last summer.
There is speculation that the Supreme Court's bona fide relationship standard may persist until (or unless) Congress is someday motivated to step up and sort out this mess. Of course, the government could lose after a full trial in Watson's court, which could set up another window for those without bona fide relationships to apply.
My feelings on this remain conflicted. On one hand, requiring a bona fide relationship would be a reasonable reform for the overall diversity visa program. This year's diversity visa cycle winners from Iran et al knew very well that such a decision may be coming, and have sufficient time to form ties with US institutions like community colleges to potentially qualify under the guidelines that were adopted (and very inconsistently enforced) after the Supreme Court stay. However, enforcing it on such a small group of nationalities still feels discriminatory, and even insulting when "preventing foreign terrorist entry" is used as a justification for selecting those nationalities.
As for the very few tourists from Iran with the means to qualify for a US tourist visa in the absence of US ties or a SKN passport (or some other qualifying travel document), well, at least they won't have to suffer the indignity of the DS-5535...
There is speculation that the Supreme Court's bona fide relationship standard may persist until (or unless) Congress is someday motivated to step up and sort out this mess. Of course, the government could lose after a full trial in Watson's court, which could set up another window for those without bona fide relationships to apply.
My feelings on this remain conflicted. On one hand, requiring a bona fide relationship would be a reasonable reform for the overall diversity visa program. This year's diversity visa cycle winners from Iran et al knew very well that such a decision may be coming, and have sufficient time to form ties with US institutions like community colleges to potentially qualify under the guidelines that were adopted (and very inconsistently enforced) after the Supreme Court stay. However, enforcing it on such a small group of nationalities still feels discriminatory, and even insulting when "preventing foreign terrorist entry" is used as a justification for selecting those nationalities.
As for the very few tourists from Iran with the means to qualify for a US tourist visa in the absence of US ties or a SKN passport (or some other qualifying travel document), well, at least they won't have to suffer the indignity of the DS-5535...
#575
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
They won't stop. DOJ filed an appeal to the Supreme Court even after they got what seemed like a victory last week. Somebody really, really, really doesn't want my mother in law to visit...
It's 110 pages, but the majority is just cut and paste from prior rulings. We get some assurances that something substantive happened in the mysterious "multi-Department worldwide review" that followed 13769, but I'm still not satisfied that they fully evaluated all options short of a blanket ban that included children and grandparents. They're arguing again that this is temporary because we're just debating what to do in the interim while the trial proceeds in Hawaii, and since it's temporary any damage to the Iranian-American and other communities is not irreparable. Seems like we've heard that line of reasoning before...
There was also an interesting read in the Post this morning that seems to confirm some of what we suspected about why LH was the only carrier boarding blacklisted passengers to Massachusetts in the early days of this saga.
It's 110 pages, but the majority is just cut and paste from prior rulings. We get some assurances that something substantive happened in the mysterious "multi-Department worldwide review" that followed 13769, but I'm still not satisfied that they fully evaluated all options short of a blanket ban that included children and grandparents. They're arguing again that this is temporary because we're just debating what to do in the interim while the trial proceeds in Hawaii, and since it's temporary any damage to the Iranian-American and other communities is not irreparable. Seems like we've heard that line of reasoning before...
There was also an interesting read in the Post this morning that seems to confirm some of what we suspected about why LH was the only carrier boarding blacklisted passengers to Massachusetts in the early days of this saga.
#576
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,320
And when the courts say no the border patrol enforces it anyway:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1DL216
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1DL216
#577
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
They won't stop. DOJ filed an appeal to the Supreme Court even after they got what seemed like a victory last week. Somebody really, really, really doesn't want my mother in law to visit...
It's 110 pages, but the majority is just cut and paste from prior rulings. We get some assurances that something substantive happened in the mysterious "multi-Department worldwide review" that followed 13769, but I'm still not satisfied that they fully evaluated all options short of a blanket ban that included children and grandparents. They're arguing again that this is temporary because we're just debating what to do in the interim while the trial proceeds in Hawaii, and since it's temporary any damage to the Iranian-American and other communities is not irreparable. Seems like we've heard that line of reasoning before...
There was also an interesting read in the Post this morning that seems to confirm some of what we suspected about why LH was the only carrier boarding blacklisted passengers to Massachusetts in the early days of this saga.
It's 110 pages, but the majority is just cut and paste from prior rulings. We get some assurances that something substantive happened in the mysterious "multi-Department worldwide review" that followed 13769, but I'm still not satisfied that they fully evaluated all options short of a blanket ban that included children and grandparents. They're arguing again that this is temporary because we're just debating what to do in the interim while the trial proceeds in Hawaii, and since it's temporary any damage to the Iranian-American and other communities is not irreparable. Seems like we've heard that line of reasoning before...
There was also an interesting read in the Post this morning that seems to confirm some of what we suspected about why LH was the only carrier boarding blacklisted passengers to Massachusetts in the early days of this saga.
#578
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
I can't find the actual filing, but there's a report that DOJ is taking the Maryland ruling straight to the Supreme Court, too. Both IRAP and Hawaii have about a week to respond. Noel Francisco must feel confident about this one.
#579
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
#580
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Here is the letter: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...Travel-Ban.pdf
#581
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Interesting business as a practical matter as my understanding is that it is hard to know whether an inhibited passenger is inhibited by CBP or TSA as all inhibited passengers come back as 11 with no distinction, so did they manually clear each CBP-inhibited passenger with the TSC to get rid of the TSA no-board flag?
#582
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Interesting business as a practical matter as my understanding is that it is hard to know whether an inhibited passenger is inhibited by CBP or TSA as all inhibited passengers come back as 11 with no distinction, so did they manually clear each CBP-inhibited passenger with the TSC to get rid of the TSA no-board flag?
If a non-US person comes up with the TSC as to be inhibited from travel to the US, most commonly the person wouldnt be issued a US visa or an ESTA at time of (and by way of just) initial application.
#583
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
Hawaii's response is in. I'm biased, but I think it looks strong. This is perhaps my favorite line in the whole document (pg. 22):
The United States does not need information from a foreign government in order to confirm that a child under the age of five is not a terrorist.
#584
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles, VA
Programs: UA Life Gold, Marriott Life Titanium
Posts: 2,757
So the current ban is going to be enforced, at least until the cases work their way up from the District courts.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...417zr_4gd5.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...417zr_4gd5.pdf
#585
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
The Supreme Court is allowing the hardship standard for individuals with bonafide ties to take effect while the cases in Hawaii and Maryland grind on. I'm literally trembling right now.
I'll be sending inquires to whoever I can track down at the State Department (though they *really* make it difficult to get through to anyone who knows anything) to see if I can get any information about how they will be implementing the hardship standard and to get a sense of whether their position on American K-1/CR-1 petitioners moving to Iran has changed with the adoption of this policy. I know of a few couples who are being put in a very difficult situation today. If this had struck at the wrong moment of my life, I could see myself showing up at Consulate Istanbul tomorrow morning to hand in my passport.
I'll be sending inquires to whoever I can track down at the State Department (though they *really* make it difficult to get through to anyone who knows anything) to see if I can get any information about how they will be implementing the hardship standard and to get a sense of whether their position on American K-1/CR-1 petitioners moving to Iran has changed with the adoption of this policy. I know of a few couples who are being put in a very difficult situation today. If this had struck at the wrong moment of my life, I could see myself showing up at Consulate Istanbul tomorrow morning to hand in my passport.