Image 01 Image 03

Trump issues new Permanent Travel Order

Trump issues new Permanent Travel Order

Is the pending Supreme Court case now moot? (Update: DOJ requests further SCOTUS briefing)

It seems like ancient history, but the original and replacement Travel Orders were meant to be temporary, to provide time for a security review.

Those Orders were demagogued as “Muslim bans” when they clearly were not. They applied to the seven highest risk countries for terrorist visa infiltration as identified by the Obama Department of Homeland Security. What ensued were outrageous lower and appeals court decisions against the Travel Orders that read frequently like political manifestos.

The Supreme Court put an end to most of the lower court shenanigans, and freed up the Trump administration to conduct its review. (There was more court action after that, which the Supreme Court again had to slap down.)

Now the security reviews have been completed, and new guidelines were issued tonight, with the wordy title,
Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats:

In Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), on the recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, I ordered a worldwide review of whether, and if so what, additional information would be needed from each foreign country to assess adequately whether their nationals seeking to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat. This was the first such review of its kind in United States history. As part of the review, the Secretary of Homeland Security established global requirements for information sharing in support of immigration screening and vetting. The Secretary of Homeland Security developed a comprehensive set of criteria and applied it to the information-sharing practices, policies, and capabilities of foreign governments. The Secretary of State thereafter engaged with the countries reviewed in an effort to address deficiencies and achieve improvements. In many instances, those efforts produced positive results. By obtaining additional information and formal commitments from foreign governments, the United States Government has improved its capacity and ability to assess whether foreign nationals attempting to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat. Our Nation is safer as a result of this work.

Despite those efforts, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, has determined that a small number of countries — out of nearly 200 evaluated — remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory.

As President, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people. I am committed to our ongoing efforts to engage those countries willing to cooperate, improve information-sharing and identity-management protocols and procedures, and address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Some of the countries with remaining inadequacies face significant challenges. Others have made strides to improve their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until they satisfactorily address the identified inadequacies, I have determined, on the basis of recommendations from the Secretary of Homeland Security and other members of my Cabinet, to impose certain conditional restrictions and limitations, as set forth more fully below, on entry into the United States of nationals of the countries identified in section 2 of this proclamation.

The new Order is permanent and goes on to detail country by country prohibitions and adds to the list of countries affected, to include Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. The Permanent Travel Order has different restrictions by country.

For example, here is the one for Chad:

(a) Chad.

(i) The government of Chad is an important and valuable counterterrorism partner of the United States, and the United States Government looks forward to expanding that cooperation, including in the areas of immigration and border management. Chad has shown a clear willingness to improve in these areas. Nonetheless, Chad does not adequately share public-safety and terrorism-related information and fails to satisfy at least one key risk criterion. Additionally, several terrorist groups are active within Chad or in the surrounding region, including elements of Boko Haram, ISIS-West Africa, and al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb. At this time, additional information sharing to identify those foreign nationals applying for visas or seeking entry into the United States who represent national security and public-safety threats is necessary given the significant terrorism-related risk from this country.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Chad, as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is hereby suspended.

By contrast, the one for Syria is complete:

(e) Syria.

(i) Syria regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorist threats, and has been designated by the Department of State as a state sponsor of terrorism. Syria has significant inadequacies in identity-management protocols, fails to share public-safety and terrorism information, and fails to satisfy at least one key risk criterion.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Syria as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.

Obviously anticipating more litigation, the Permanent Travel Order carves out limitations and exceptions:

Sec. 3. Scope and Implementation of Suspensions and Limitations.

(a) Scope. Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any waiver under subsection (c) of this section, the suspensions of and limitations on entry pursuant to section 2 of this proclamation shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:

(i) are outside the United States on the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation;

(ii) do not have a valid visa on the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation; and

(iii) do not qualify for a visa or other valid travel document under section 6(d) of this proclamation.

(b) Exceptions. The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this proclamation shall not apply to:

(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

(ii) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation;

(iii) any foreign national who has a document other than a visa — such as a transportation letter, an appropriate boarding foil, or an advance parole document — valid on the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation or issued on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission;

(iv) any dual national of a country designated under section 2 of this proclamation when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country;

(v) any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; or

(vi) any foreign national who has been granted asylum by the United States; any refugee who has already been admitted to the United States; or any individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The usual suspects are already screaming racism and promising to fight it:

The fact that non-Muslim countries are on the list is being claimed to be a ruse to cover up anti-Muslim bias, and if not, it’s an attack on Hispanics! (because Venezuela is on the list)

(added) The ACLU vows to keep up the court fights:

“Six of President Trump’s targeted countries are Muslim. The fact that Trump has added North Korea — with few visitors to the U.S. — and a few government officials from Venezuela doesn’t obfuscate the real fact that the administration’s order is still a Muslim ban. President Trump’s original sin of targeting Muslims cannot be cured by throwing other countries onto his enemies list.”

So what happens to the pending Supreme Court case? It seems that so much of the case as sought an injunction against Travel Order No. 2 is moot, meaning there’s nothing left to enjoin. I’d have to dig deeper into the pleadings to know if the entire case goes away, but it seems that much of it will.

UPDATE: DOJ is requesting further briefing in light of new Permanent Trave Order, via Reuters reporter Lawrence Hurley:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Didn’t I


    healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | September 24, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    Since some of us are apparently coming to a wipeout party late, why don’t you explain exactly what problem you have with this new travel order?

      Ragspierre in reply to healthguyfsu. | September 25, 2017 at 7:36 am

      Why, not a single thing. I generally support the idea of a choke on immigration from several nations. I always have.

      I did think the first EO was left-handed and stupid, rushed on to the scene, and very likely unvetted by several of the people who should have vetted it.

      The second was better, more durable, and likely to survive challenge.

      I did say, several times, that I thought this contest in the courts could be wired around with a new, even more carefully drafted and less specific EO.

      Here it is.

      You didn’t just come to the party late, you came without a clue. But you thought you’d attack me anyhow.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | September 25, 2017 at 8:52 am

        How exactly did I attack you…skin growing mighty thin there Ragsy.

        4th armored div in reply to Ragspierre. | September 25, 2017 at 11:35 am

        go away, kid.
        you are not rational.

        rags is a perfect description of your thoughtlessness –
        i suggest NOONE up or down thumd this nutball.
        it seems that all he desires is attention, like a little boy pulling on the skirt of his nanny –
        even his parents realize that they have sired a little mindless prat.

When they start saying it’s “horrific” & stuff, that means it’s actually solving a problem!

William A. Jacobson | September 24, 2017 at 9:27 pm

I deleted some comments that were off the topic of this post, and nothing more than attempts to instigate comment section fights.

Hmmm. Posts are being deleted.

It’s not clear that they’re deleting the right ones.


Since it’s the Prof’s site, he gets to ban or block anybody he wants, for any reason he wants. Complaining about it makes you look like you’re not very clear about whose site it is, or else you’re whining that your whining is being removed so others don’t have to listen to it.

Personally, I like a site with more signal-to-noise ratio, and less verbal abuse and “playing who’s the bigger victim”.

    tom swift in reply to Big Tim. | September 24, 2017 at 11:01 pm

    a site with more signal-to-noise ratio

    That would be nice, but it’s what we’re not getting lately.

    And that’s the reason for my observation—a great deal of noise isn’t being deleted.

    Obviously Prof J can delete what he sees fit. For that matter, he can take a knee when the anthem plays. Nobody’s under any obligation to make wise choices.

I know that won’t make it but I couldn’t resist, been a long my day for me fighting with Bots on tweeter regarding the NFL insanity .
They destroyed football for me and that makes for a very sad, and sarcastic woman

What I have an issue with is all of it.
Does anyone understand that we have a Constitutional Republic? That we’re sovereign (citizens)?
I don’t like the idea of an all powerful Federal government, which has been the case since the Civil war. But I like even less the idea of a President with unlimited power. A SCOUTUS that’s making laws bothers me as well.
It seems the American people forgot a long time ago the very important words “with the consent” of the governed.
1.I did NOT consent to open the borders of my country to unlimited immigration. I certainly did NOT consent for the Federal government to abandon its responsibility to protect its citizens. I think it’s high time for this Govt to be reminded that the only sovereign entities in this relationship are the people!

Part of me wishes he’d issued an actual ban on Moslems (other than citizens and permanent residents) entering the country. I think it would be very bad policy, mind you, but legally I think it would be eminently defensible, well within the constitutional limits on Congress’s and the president’s powers.

The only potential legal issue I can see is whether Congress has given the president enough flexibility for him to such a move unilaterally; a court might reasonably conclude that it would have to come directly from Congress.

    A court might decide that, milhous, but the word ‘reasonably’ would in no way apply to that restriction on the presidents legitimate powers.

      Milhouse in reply to rdm. | September 25, 2017 at 7:46 am

      How so? What legitimate powers does the president have over immigration? None that I can see. It’s Congress, not the president, that the Supreme Court said has plenary power over immigration. Whatever power the president has in the matter is delegated to him by Congress.

      (The originalist position should be that neither Congress nor the president has any power to restrict immigration, because there’s not a hint of such a power anywhere in the constitution. But more than a century ago SCOTUS said Congress has plenary power over it, so I’m arguing within the context of that decision, which is current law.)

        tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2017 at 9:02 am

        ICE, INS, etc. and the entire regulatory and bureaucratic apparatus behind them are all part of the Executive, and work for the President, not Congress. Policies are matters of interpretation of acts of Congress. That, at least in principle, gives the President considerable control over immigration.

        Consider the famous (and arbitrary) “wet foot, dry foot” policy regarding Cuban immigration. Its starting point was indeed an act of Congress— a 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966—but the policy itself, and its implementation, had nothing to do with Congress, but was the work of the Clinton administration and some agreements it worked out with Cuba. It remained in force until ended by Obama shortly before he left office—and again, Congress was not involved.

          Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | September 26, 2017 at 5:29 am

          The constitution gives the president no authority over immigration. For that matter it doesn’t give Congress such authority either, but more than a century ago the Supreme Court said it was implied that Congress had plenary authority on immigration, so let’s go with that. That means the president has only as much authority as Congress grants him.

        The President, as chief officer of the Executive Branch, has both the authority AND the duty to enforce immigration laws which are passed by Congress. To do that, he has to interpret the language of those laws.

        In this case, the Congress passed laws which may be open to conflicting interpretation. When that occurs, it becomes the job of the judiciary to interpret the language of the laws in question and rule as to which is paramount, should they be in opposition.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | September 26, 2017 at 5:31 am

          Yes, he does have to interpret the authority Congress gave him, but if someone thinks he has exceeded that authority they are supposed to go to court, at which point the president’s interpretation becomes irrelevant because the court must make up its own mind what the statute means. That’s where we’re at.

Who decided to pick such an orange-faced photo for this post?

Maybe I missed it, but wasn’t Boko Haram persistently omitted from the official list of terrorist groups by the Obama administration?
Did Trump change that? If he did, that’s newsworthy.

    Milhouse in reply to Virgo. | September 26, 2017 at 5:37 am

    No, 0bama changed it, four years ago. For several years before that State didn’t want BH listed, for fear that that would simply reward them by giving them more credibility and prestige with their terrorist pals; but eventually it just became too blatant and they had to list it.