Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Executive orders banning entry to US ... [merged threads]

Executive orders banning entry to US ... [merged threads]

Old Oct 19, 2017, 5:06 pm
  #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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2017, 3:22 am
  #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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 8, 2017, 4:13 pm
  #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...)
lonelycrowd is offline  
Old Nov 14, 2017, 8:44 am
  #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...
lonelycrowd is offline  
Old Nov 21, 2017, 7:10 am
  #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.
lonelycrowd is offline  
Old Nov 21, 2017, 3:10 pm
  #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
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Nov 21, 2017, 3:25 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by lonelycrowd
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.
The indication is there that senior officials in and around DC were trying to have the ban applied despite court orders against enforcement of the ban. The German government was on Lufthansa over this and backing Lufthansa on this.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2017, 9:48 am
  #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.
lonelycrowd is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2017, 12:29 pm
  #579  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The indication is there that senior officials in and around DC were trying to have the ban applied despite court orders against enforcement of the ban. The German government was on Lufthansa over this and backing Lufthansa on this.
Here is the letter: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...Travel-Ban.pdf
Ari is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2017, 2:20 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by Ari
.... which mentions that LH ignored the CBP no-board demands and indicate that LH was told it could use the court rulings as cover to reject the no-board instructions from CBP.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2017, 6:13 pm
  #581  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by GUWonder
.... which mentions that LH ignored the CBP no-board demands and indicate that LH was told it could use the court rulings as cover to reject the no-board instructions from CBP.
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?
Ari is offline  
Old Nov 26, 2017, 12:11 am
  #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
Originally Posted by Ari
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?
FRA and MUC have had CBP IAP in operation. How that played into what transpired should have been the same at FRA and MUC as at say LHR. How FBI cooperation with German intelligence/police played into what transpired for some such passengers may be rather telling, but I havent looked into that.

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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 28, 2017, 4:25 pm
  #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.
lonelycrowd is offline  
Old Dec 4, 2017, 2:46 pm
  #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
catocony is offline  
Old Dec 4, 2017, 3:12 pm
  #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.
lonelycrowd is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.