This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/06/new-trump-travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries-refugees

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Revised travel ban: Trump signs order targeting six Muslim-majority countries Revised travel ban: Trump signs order targeting six Muslim-majority countries
(35 minutes later)
Donald Trump has signed a revised executive order to reinstate a ban on immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries and suspend the US refugee program. Donald Trump on Monday signed a revised executive order to reinstate a ban on immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries and suspend the US refugee program.
The new travel ban blocks entry to the US for citizens from six of the seven countries named in Trump’s original order, officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and state department told reporters on a conference call on Monday. The new ban revokes a previous order issued on 27 January that prompted instant chaos at airports across America and was eventually blocked by federal judges following a series of constitutional challenges. The move marked a significant retreat for Trump and his administration’s vigorous defense of the original travel ban as being within the president’s legal authority. But activists said they were planning to challenge the new ban.
The move comes after a federal judge blocked the ban and a federal appeals court upheld that ruling, denying the justice department’s request to reinstate it. The original executive order that was challenged in court was revoked by Trump on Monday. The new order seeks to address prior complaints by removing language that granted priority to religious minorities for refugee resettlement, which had been viewed as targeting Muslims. It states that Trump’s original directive “was not motivated by animus toward any religion”, a remark rejected instantly by refugee advocates and civil liberty groups, who said they planned to challenge the second order on similar grounds.
As with the previous order, people from Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Libya will face a 90-day suspension of visa processing. But Iraq will be removed from the list of countries affected. The inclusion of Iraq in the original order had prompted concerns from the national security community because of the country’s role in fighting terrorism alongside US forces. It also includes specific exemptions for lawful permanent residents, who had initially been covered by the previous order.
The revised order will keep in place a 120-day suspension of the refugee program, but it will no longer identify Syrian refugees as subject to an indefinite ban. Officials on the call said Syrians would be treated no differently from other refugees seeking asylum in the United States. And it removes Iraq from the list of targeted states, and implements a more gradual roll-out, meaning the new travel ban will not come into full effect for another 10 days. The first order was implemented immediately and prompted confusion and chaos at US airports and consulates abroad.
The order will not come into effect until one minute past midnight eastern standard time on Thursday March 16, in contrast to the first order, which was implemented immediately. The president quietly signed the order away from the presence of cameras or the press, marking a significant departure from the rollout of the original travel ban at the Department of Defense on 27 January.
Leaked guidance published by Just Security states that the Trump administration had removed Iraq from the second order due to the “close cooperative relationship” between the United States and Iraqi governments and “Iraq’s commitment to combat Isis”. The revised ban was instead announced by the heads of the agencies that will be tasked with overseeing its implementation. Addressing a limited pool of reporters on Monday, secretary of state Rex Tillerson, Department of Homeland Security secretary John Kelly, and attorney general Jeff Sessions dubbed the move critical to US national security.
Other changes will include an exemption for green card holders, who were swept up in the chaos that resulted from the previous order at airports across the country. Language granting priority to religious minorities for entry has also been scrapped, officials said, while attempting to make the case that the travel ban did not seek to target individuals of any one faith. “With this order, President Trump is exercising his rightful authority to keep our people safe,” Tillerson said.
“This is not a Muslim ban in any way, shape, or form,” an official told reporters on the call. “There are dozens and hundreds of millions, if not 1-point something billion, Muslims who are not subject to this executive order.” “As threats to our security continue to evolve and change, common sense dictates that we continue to reevaluate and reassess the systems that we rely upon to protect our country.”
The emphasis, the official said, was on countries where the US lacked “the ability to make adequate screening and vetting determinations for nationals under current procedures”. The new travel ban blocks entry to the US for citizens from six of the seven countries named in Trump’s original order – Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Libya – for a period of 90 days. Iraq was removed from the list following criticism that the original order overlooked the country’s role in fighting terrorism and barred entry even to the Iraqi interpreters who had been embedded with US forces in the region.
But findings from a Department of Homeland Security report, obtained by several news outlets in recent weeks, cast doubt on the administration’s argument behind the travel ban. “Iraq is an important ally in the fight to defeat Isis,” Tillerson said Monday.
The document, the authenticity of which was confirmed by the Guardian but framed by a DHS spokesperson as “incomplete”, noted that citizens from the countries identified in Trump’s ban are “rarely implicated in US-based terrorism”. It further concluded that citizenship was an “unreliable indicator” of the threat posed by terrorism to the US. The revised order will also keep in place a 120-day suspension of the refugee program, but it will no longer identify Syrian refugees as subject to an indefinite ban. It also maintains a 50,000 annual cap on America’s refugee intake, which more than halved president Obama’s pledge to resettle 110,000 refugees in 2017.
The official claimed: “This is not in any way targeted as a Muslim ban. We firmly want to make sure that everyone understands that.” Several other changes to the travel ban served as a tacit acknowledgement that the original order was hastily crafted and paved the way for a litany of legal questions.
But Grace Meng, an immigration researcher for Human Rights Watch’s US program, argued the reported changes contained within Trump’s revised order were “merely cosmetic”. That order was temporarily halted by a federal judge just days after it was issued. A federal appeals court upheld that ruling last month, denying the justice department’s request to reinstate it.
The original order, crafted by Trump’s 31-year-old speechwriter, Stephen Miller, and senior adviser Steve Bannon, sparked intense backlash against the White House.
Republicans in Washington criticized the administration for failing to consult with the relevant agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security and state department, as well as members of Congress. Democrats, faith leaders and civil liberties advocates widely condemned the order as the first step in fulfilling Trump’s campaign pledge to ban Muslim immigration to the US.
The White House has continued to defend the travel ban as a pressing matter of national security. But the administration appeared to undermine its own rationale by delaying the revised order last week, citing a desire not to crowd out the positive media coverage that followed Trump’s joint address before Congress.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, said the decision by the White House to delay the announcement was “all the proof Americans need to know that this has absolutely nothing to do with national security”.
“Despite their best efforts, I fully expect this executive order to have the same uphill climb in the courts that the previous version had,” Schumer said in a statement.
“A watered down ban is still a ban ... it is mean-spirited, and un-American. It must be repealed.”
Kelly, the DHS secretary, said on Monday he had spent much of the past week on the phone with congressional leaders and other lawmakers “explaining the ins and outs” of the revised order.
“There should be no surprises, whether it’s in the media or on Capitol Hill,” Kelly said.
Grace Meng, an immigration researcher for Human Rights Watch’s US program, said the changes contained within Trump’s revised order were “merely cosmetic”.
“President Trump still seems to believe you can determine who’s a terrorist by knowing which country a man, woman or child is from,” Meng said in a statement. “Putting this executive order into effect will only create a false sense of security that genuine steps are being taken to protect Americans from attack, while undermining the standing of the US as a refuge for those at greater risk.”“President Trump still seems to believe you can determine who’s a terrorist by knowing which country a man, woman or child is from,” Meng said in a statement. “Putting this executive order into effect will only create a false sense of security that genuine steps are being taken to protect Americans from attack, while undermining the standing of the US as a refuge for those at greater risk.”
The new order is intended to address the legal challenges that stemmed from Trump’s original travel ban, which was issued on 27 January. That order, crafted by Trump’s 31-year-old speechwriter, Steven Miller, and senior adviser Steve Bannon, sparked intense backlash against the White House. Other refugee advocacy groups vowed to challenge the order in court, arguing that the revised language did not alter the intent to discriminate against Muslims.
Republicans in Washington criticized the administration for failing to consult with the relevant agencies, such as the DHS and state department, as well as members of Congress. Democrats, faith leaders and civil liberties advocates widely condemned the order as the first step in fulfilling Trump’s pledge to ban Muslim immigration to the US. Officials at the DHS and State Department told reporters on a conference call Monday the objective was not to bar individuals on the basis of religion.
The White House has continued to defend the travel ban as a pressing matter of national security. But the administration nonetheless delayed its own rollout of the revised order last week, citing a desire not to crowd out the positive media coverage that followed Trump’s joint address before Congress. “This is not a Muslim ban in any way, shape, or form,” an official said.
Asked if the White House had undermined its own rationale for the travel ban in doing so, officials on the DHS call declined to weigh in after an audible silence. “There are dozens and hundreds of millions, if not one-point something billion Muslims who are not subject to this executive order.”
“I think that question might be best addressed to the White House,” an official said. “Although I don’t think the underlying, very real security concerns are changed in any way.” The emphasis, the official added, was on countries where the US lacked “the ability to make adequate screening and vetting determinations for nationals under current procedures.”
But Trump, as a candidate, called for “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration to the US. After he signed the initial travel ban, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a close associate of the president’s, said Trump asked him how to implement a Muslim ban legally.
“I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,’” Giuliani said on Fox News. “He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”
A federal judge invoked Giuliani’s comments in the oral arguments on the initial travel ban. Legal experts say that interview, coupled with Trump’s own repeated vows to ban or limit Muslim immigration, will likely continue to cloud the administration in legal challenges against the travel ban and its intent.
Findings from a Department of Homeland Security report, obtained by several news outlets in recent weeks, also cast doubt on the administration’s rationale for the travel ban.
The document, the authenticity of which was confirmed by the Guardian but framed by a DHS spokesperson as “incomplete,” noted that citizens from the countries identified in Trump’s ban are “rarely implicated in US-based terrorism.”
It further concluded that citizenship was an “unreliable indicator” of the threat posed by terrorism to the US.