Trump To Annouce Tougher Caps, Vetting Rules For Refugees

Now that the Trump administration’s temporary ban on accepting new refugees – first implemented in June after the Supreme Court ruled that a narrower version of Trump’s second travel ban would be allowed to take effect – has expired, the administration has said it will begin accepting refugees from all countries, but with new rules meant to better vet applicants, and with a tighter cap on the number of refugees that was previously unveiled last month, both the WSJ and Fox reported, citing sources close to the administration.

President Trump is expected to announce a tighter cap on the number of refugees admitted to the US and call for tougher vetting rules during a speech on Tuesday – the day the 120-day refugee ban expires. Coinciding with the deadline, Trump is expected to sign a document starting the process of allowing refugees back into the US under new guidelines.

Under the rules, the administration would cap refugee admissions at 45,000. That’s down from 110,000 under the last year of the Obama administration.

After Trump signs the order, the administration will begin collecting more biographical data, such as names of family members and places of employment, officials said. The administration will also do more to mine social media posts to see, for instance, if refugees’ public pronouncements are consistent with the stories they offer in their applications, the officials said.

Meanwhile, the officials responsible for the screening at the US Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, will be given new guidance and better training to help detect fraud in refugees’ applications.

Under the new order being issued, refugee admissions will resume for all countries. However, one person familiar with the planning said that people from 11 targeted countries will be subject to additional vetting that will slow down the process for them.

As WSJ points out, the vetting process can be particularly challenging because applicants have been forced to flee their home countries and often don’t have documents to confirm their identities and personal details.

The Obama administration also sought to increase vetting of social media posts, but officials involved say their efforts were limited in part because the process is labor intensive.

Of course, Trump’s immigration policies have been repeatedly challenged by federal judges. But while the courts have delivered a series of setbacks to the administration’s efforts to block travelers from certain – most of them Muslim-majority – countries. But the Supreme Court gave the administration a temporary victory on the refugee policy last month, allowing the ban to stay in place until the October expiration. 

Trumps Expands Travel Ban To Eight Countries, Adds North Korea, Venezuela

On Sunday evening, President Trump announced he would replace his controversial travel ban with a targeted list of restrictions that will enhance vetting for nationals from eight countries, and restrict or prohibit entry of citizens from North Korea and Venezuela among others, to the United States as part of a sweeping new travel ban that also slaps restrictions on Iran, Chad, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia - countries that hardly have a "thriving" tourism industry with the US.

“As president, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people,” Trump said in the proclamation. Individuals who fall under the Supreme Court"s "bona fide" exception can still apply for visas until Oct. 18. This would allow a foreign grandparent of a U.S. citizen to be granted the benefit of travel until this date.

Speaking to reporters earlier, Bloomberg noted that Trump said “the tougher, the better,” on the restrictions. During his presidential campaign, Trump spoke often of “extreme vetting” of those wanting to enter the U.S., and on Sunday he tweeted, “We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet.”

While Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia were part of the president"s original travel ban, it has removed travel restrictions on Sudan, while adding Chad, Iraq, Venezuela and North Korea.  The addition of latter two nations broadens the restrictions from the original, mostly Muslim-majority list. Though Iraq is not part of the list of targeted nations, the Department of Homeland Security said that Iraqi nationals should "be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if they pose risks to the national security or public safety of the United States." 

The officials say these states failed to comply with the U.S. information-sharing requirements that aim to make vetting processes stronger. 

Some states were denied because of their identity management and information sharing deficiencies, some have substantial terrorist organizations in their region that add to the threat level of admitting their citizens into the U.S., and others have failed to comply whatsoever with the information agreements.

The restrictions are “necessary” and conditions-based with the aim of protecting Americans by having stronger vetting standards, one senior official said.

Changes to the list can be made on a rolling basis with updates every 100 days. The changes can go both ways: countries can be taken off the list, but they can also be put on the list if they are not seen as complying with the standard

The officials said an announcement will be coming in next six days to inform members of Congress about any changes or modifications to the refugee cap.

The new restrictions, slated to go into effect on October 18, resulted from a review after President Donald Trump’s original travel bans were challenged in court. The proclamation comes the same day that Trump’s 90-day ban on visitors from six Muslim-majority nations is set to expire.

“North Korea does not cooperate with the United States government in any respect and fails to satisfy all information-sharing requirements,” the proclamation said. "Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of North Korea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is suspended."

Of course, the revised ban is largely just another theatrical measure by Trump: an administration official, briefing reporters on a conference call, acknowledged that the number of North Koreans traveling to the United States now was very low.

While the full fact sheet on the just announced "Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats" can be found here, here are the White House"s justifications for its new country specific restrictions:

• Chad – Although it is an important partner, especially in the fight against terrorists, the government in Chad does not adequately share public-safety and terrorism-related information, and 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. Accordingly, 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 suspended.


• Iran – The government in Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks; is the source of significant terrorist threats; is state sponsor of terrorism; and fails to receive its nationals subject to final orders of removal from the United States. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of Iran as immigrants and as nonimmigrants is suspended, except that entry by nationals of Iran under valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas is not suspended, although such individuals will be subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements.


• Libya – Although it is an important partner, especially in the area of counterterrorism, the government in Libya faces significant challenges in sharing several types of information, including public-safety and terrorism-related information; has significant inadequacies in its identity-management protocols; has been assessed to be not fully cooperative with respect to receiving its nationals subject to final orders of removal from the United States; and has a substantial terrorist presence within its territory. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of Libya, as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is suspended.


• North Korea – The government in North Korea does not cooperate with the United States Government in any respect and fails to satisfy all information-sharing requirements. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of North Korea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is suspended.


• Somalia – Although it satisfies minimum U.S. information-sharing requirements, the government in Somalia still has significant identity-management deficiencies; is recognized as a terrorist safe haven; remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States; and struggles to govern its territory and to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement, access to resources, and capacity to operate. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of Somalia as immigrants is suspended, and nonimmigrants traveling to the United States will be subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements.


• Syria – The government in Syria regularly fails to cooperate with the U.S. Government in identifying security risks; is the source of significant terrorist threats; has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism; has significant inadequacies in identity-management protocols; and fails to share public-safety and terrorism information. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of Syria as immigrants and nonimmigrants is suspended.


• Venezuela – The government in Venezuela is uncooperative in verifying whether its citizens pose national security or public-safety threats; fails to share public-safety and terrorism-related information adequately; and has been assessed to be not fully cooperative with respect to receiving its nationals subject to final orders of removal from the United States. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of certain Venezuelan government officials and their immediate family members as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas is suspended.


• Yemen – Although it is an important partner, especially in the fight against terrorism, the government in Yemen faces significant identity-management challenges, which are amplified by the notable terrorist presence within its territory; fails to satisfy critical identity-management requirements; and does not share public-safety and terrorism-related information adequately. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of Yemen as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is suspended.

State Department Issues Clarifications As Travel Ban Set To Take Effect, Lawyers Stand Ready

Now that the Supreme Court has approved a “narrower” version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban, the measure is set to go into effect for the first time since late January, when it sparked chaos and protests at airports across the country.

The revised ban, which the court ruled must allow the admittance of individuals who have a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" in the country, will take affect at 8 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, according to the Hill. Under the court’s new standard, an individual must have a close US family relationship or formal ties to a US entity like an employer or academic institution to be admitted to the United States under guidance distributed by the US State Department on Wednesday, according to the Hill.

Otherwise, they are temporarily banned for 90 days or 120 days if they"re a refugee coming from any country in the world. In preparation for the ban to take effect, the State Department issued a cable adding a few clarifications to the Supreme Court ruling, advising that close family "does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other "extended" family members,” according to Reuters.

The cable also specified that any relationship with a US entity "must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading the E.O.," a reference to U President Donald Trump"s March 6 executive order barring most US travel by citizens of the six nations for 90 days.

It also provided a narrower definition of what constitutes a “bona fide” relations, explaining that visiting lecturers and student-visa applications would be welcome, but individuals who had simply made a hotel room reservation would not. However, many important issues - like whether the State Department"s own dealings with refugees constitutes a "bona fide" relationship - remain unresolved. And there"s also the question of whether courts could issue their own guidance that would supersede the State Department"s.

Here’s Reuters:

The cable provides advice to US consular officers on how to interpret Monday"s Supreme Court ruling that allowed parts of the executive order, which had been blocked by the courts, to be implemented while the highest U.S. court considers the matter.

The countries covered by order include Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, after the administration removed Iraq from the list in its updated ban.

The cable"s language closely mirrored the Supreme Court"s order on the travel ban, though it appeared to interpret it in a narrow manner, notably in its definition of close family.

It was unclear on Wednesday evening whether the State Department"s interpretation of the court"s order would spark further legal action by opponents of the ban.

The guidance gave several examples of what might constitute a bona fide relationship with a U.S. entity, and said broad categories would be exempt from the travel ban, such as those eligible for student visas, "as their bona fide relationship to a person or entity is inherent in the visa classification."

Similarly, those eligible for family or employment based immigrant visa applications are exempt from the travel ban, the cable said.

The State Department guidance was unclear on what U.S. refugee agencies regard as a key question: whether their own dealings with refugees applying to come to the United States constituted a bona fide relationship.

The cable said that consulates should continue to interview applicants for so-called diversity visas, which are granted to individuals from countries that typically do not send many immigrants to the United States. In 2015, around 10,500 citizens from the six banned countries were selected for the diversity visa lottery, according to State Department figures.

The cable said "a worker who accepted an offer of employment from a company in the United States or a lecturer invited to address an audience in the United States would be exempt" from the travel ban, but someone who simply made a hotel reservation would not count as someone with a bona fide relationship.

The travel ban will likely bar such visas for citizens of the six countries, the cable acknowledged, stating that "we anticipate that very few DV applicants are likely to be exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry or to qualify for a waiver."

The Supreme Court has said it would issue a final judgment on the ban in October. Until then, there’s little recourse left: The ban is going to effect – end of story.

* * *

Meanwhile, CBS reports that a dozen lawyers have volunteered to set up shop near JFK"s Terminal 4 to monitor the implementation of the ban. A representative from the New York Immigration Coalition says more than 1,000 lawyers are ready to back them up if the ban"s implementation leads to the same type of chaos seen in January.

“We have an army of over 1,000 lawyers who have their back and are ready to go back out to JFK if that becomes necessary,” said Camille Mackler, Director of Legal Initiatives at the New York Immigration Coalition.

Though Mackler noted that such an outcome is unlikely because most of the travelers arriving in the states already have visas approved.

“In terms individuals arriving at the United States… they should already have visas approved, and are not subject to the ban, the injunction, the stay on the injunction  or anything like that,” Mackler said.

“For now it seems, just from the way that the second order was written and also from the Supreme Court’s pretty limited stay on the injunction, that most of those who will be impacted are actually abroad,” Mackler said.

No word yet as to whether we"ll see the same wave of protests at airports like those that occurred in January when the original travel ban went into effect.

Judge Bars Enforcement Of Trump's Revised Travel Ban

In the latest legal setback for President Trump"s attempt to change US immigration policy, a federal judge in Madison, Wisconsin, William Conley, blocked Trump"s revised travel ban on Friday, barring enforcement of the policy to deny U.S. entry to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee who was already granted asylum in the United States. Conley"s temporary restraining order applies only to the family of the Syrian refugee, who brought the case anonymously to protect the identities of his wife and daughter who still live in Aleppo.

U.S. District Judge William Conley

The ruling represents the first of several challenges brought against Trump"s newly amended executive order, issued on March 6 and due to go into effect on March 16, to draw a court ruling in opposition to its enforcement.

Conley, who was appointed by President Barack Obama and is chief judge of the federal court in Wisconsin"s western district, concluded the plaintiff "has presented some likelihood of success on the merits" of his case and that his family faces "significant risk of irreparable harm" if forced to remain in Syria according to Reuters. 

"The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the original executive order, and the revised executive order," Conley wrote in his decision. "As the order applies to the plaintiff here, however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts."

The plaintiff, a Sunni Muslim, fled Syria to the United States in 2014 to "escape near-certain death" at the hands of sectarian military forces fighting the Syrian government in Aleppo, according to his lawsuit. He subsequently obtained asylum for his wife and their only surviving child, a daughter, and their application had cleared the security vetting process and was headed for final processing when it was halted by Trump"s original travel ban on Jan. 27.

It was not all bad news for Trump however. In a related development on Friday, the federal judge in Seattle who imposed a nationwide injunction on enforcement of the original travel ban refused a request to apply that order to the revised policy, saying that lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.

Trump Revises Travel Ban To Address Legal Issues, Exempts Iraqis - Live Feed

Homeland Security"s Secretary Kelly, Secretary of State Tillerson, and AG Sessions will be unveiling the Trump administration"s all new and improved immigration plan to replace its previous executive order that was suspended by the courts. They will reportedly not be taking questions.

Trump administration officials have said that the new order aims to overcome the legal challenges that resulted in the first immigration ban being blocked by a federal court.

White House aide Kellyanne Conway told Fox News that the order would take effect on March 16.  She confirmed that legal permanent residents and current visa holders would be explicitly exempt from the order, and also indicated that Iraq would no longer be on the list of countries affected. "Iraq is no longer on the list based on their enhanced screening and reporting measures," Conway said. The revised order would also no longer single out Syrian refugees for an indefinite ban.

Trump has signed the new executive order behind closed doors, accoding to the White House:

• *TRUMP ORDER SUSPENDS REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR 120 DAYS


• *TRUMP"S NEW ORDER REMOVES IRAQ FROM BANNED-TRAVEL LIST


• *TRUMP ORDER BANS TRAVELERS FROM 6 COUNTRIES FOR 90 DAYS


• *TRUMP BAN AFFECTS SUDAN, SYRIA, IRAN, LIBYA, SOMALIA, YEMEN

Iraq will "increase cooperation with the US government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States," according to an administration fact sheet.

Additionally, it orders the biometric entry-exit system to be implemented in an expedited manner.

As Fox News reports, according to the new executive order, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will have 20 days to perform a “global, country-by-country review of the identity and security information that each country provides to the U.S. government to support U.S. visa and other immigration benefit determinations.”

Countries will then have 50 days to comply with requests to update or improve the “quality” of the information they provide to U.S. officials.

For countries that don’t comply, the State Department, DHS and intelligence agencies can make additional recommendations on what, if any, restrictions should be imposed.

The new order also details categories of people eligible to enter the United States for business or medical travel purposes.

Live Feed (due to start at 1130ET)

Full factsheet (via The White House)

SUBJECT: Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits, Ensuring Enforcement of All Laws for Entry into the United States, and Increasing Transparency among Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government and for the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby direct the following:

     Section 1.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to keep its citizens safe from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals.  To avert the entry into the United States of foreign nationals who may aid, support, or commit violent, criminal, or terrorist acts, it is critical that the executive branch enhance the screening and vetting protocols and procedures for granting visas, admission to the United States, or other benefits under the INA.  For that reason, in the executive order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," and issued today, I directed the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct a review to "identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat."

     While that comprehensive review is ongoing, however, this Nation cannot delay the immediate implementation of additional heightened screening and vetting protocols and procedures for issuing visas to ensure that we strengthen the safety and security of our country.

     Moreover, because it is my constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," the executive branch is committed to ensuring that all laws related to entry into the United States are enforced rigorously and consistently.

     Sec. 2.  Enhanced Vetting Protocols and Procedures for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits.  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, as permitted by law, implement protocols and procedures as soon as practicable that in their judgment will enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and all other immigration benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.  These additional protocols and procedures should focus on:

     (a)  preventing the entry into the United States of foreign nationals who may aid, support, or commit violent, criminal, or terrorist acts; and

     (b)  ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary to rigorously evaluate all grounds of inadmissibility or deportability, or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.

     Sec. 3.  Enforcement of All Laws for Entry into the United States.  I direct the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of all other relevant executive departments and agencies (as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security) to rigorously enforce all existing grounds of inadmissibility and to ensure subsequent compliance with related laws after admission.  The heads of all relevant executive departments and agencies shall issue new rules, regulations, or guidance (collectively, rules), as appropriate, to enforce laws relating to such grounds of inadmissibility and subsequent compliance.  To the extent that the Secretary of Homeland Security issues such new rules, the heads of all other relevant executive departments and agencies shall, as necessary and appropriate, issue new rules that conform to them.  Such new rules shall supersede any previous rules to the extent of any conflict.

     Sec. 4.  Transparency and Data Collection.  (a)  To ensure that the American people have more regular access to information, and to ensure that the executive branch shares information among its departments and agencies, the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, issue regular reports regarding visas and adjustments of immigration status, written in non-technical language for broad public use and understanding.  In addition to any other information released by the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security:

(i)   Beginning on April 28, 2017, and by the last day of every month thereafter, the Secretary of State shall publish the following information about actions taken during the preceding calendar month:

(A)  the number of visas that have been issued from each consular office within each country during the reporting period, disaggregated by detailed visa category and country of issuance; and

(B)  any other information the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including information that the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security may request be published.

(ii)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue reports detailing the number of adjustments of immigration status that have been made during the reporting period, disaggregated by type of adjustment, type and detailed class of admission, and country of nationality.  The first report shall be issued within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, and subsequent reports shall be issued every 90 days thereafter.  The first report shall address data from the date of this memorandum until the report is issued, and each subsequent report shall address new data since the last report was issued.

     (b)  To further ensure transparency for the American people regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of our immigration programs in serving the national interest, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall, within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, submit to me a report detailing the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program at the Federal, State, and local levels, along with recommendations about how to curtail those costs.  

     (c)  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall, within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, produce a report estimating how many refugees are being supported in countries of first asylum (near their home countries) for the same long-term cost as supporting refugees in the United States, taking into account the full lifetime cost of Federal, State, and local benefits, and the comparable cost of providing similar benefits elsewhere.

     Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

     (b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     (c)  All actions taken pursuant to this memorandum shall be consistent with requirements and authorities to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods, personally identifiable information, and the confidentiality of visa records.  Nothing in this memorandum shall be interpreted to supersede measures established under authority of law to protect the security and integrity of specific activities and associations that are in direct support of intelligence and law enforcement operations.

     (d)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

     (e)  The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Trump Delays New Travel Ban To Next Week, No Reason Given Why

A White House official sai on Wednesday that Donald Trump is pushing back the release of his revised executive order on travel and refugees until next week. Trump had said that a revamped executive order, tailored to address legal issues that blocked his original travel ban, would be released this week.  No explanation was given for the delay, and it remains unclear how the White House will tweak the travel ban to prevent future legal challenges.

“Fundamentally you’re going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country,” White House policy adviser Stephen Miller said on Fox News on Tuesday night. He said the new order will largely resemble the old one, but that the changes will be “mostly minor technical differences.”

During a speech at the White House last Thursday Trump said that "new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider a very, very bad decision. We can tailor the order to the decision to get just as much.”

White House officials have been scrambling to draft a new executive order, after initially threatening to take the 9th Circuit court of appeals to the Supreme Court, while stressing they are taking steps to ensure a smoother rollout than the last one.  The initial ban temporarily blocked travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. and suspended refugee resettlement for at least four months. It indefinitely blocked Syrian refugees from entering the country. 

After chaos ensued when the original ban was handed down on Jan. 27, resulting in hundreds of travelers being stranded at airports around the country amid confusion about whether the policy applied to people in transit and legal permanent residents, various legal challenges were filed against the order. The Department of Homeland Security days later clarified the order did not apply to permanent residents. 

But that did not stop a federal judge in Washington from issuing a nationwide restraining order halting the ban, which was later upheld by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The White House has signaled it intends to continue the legal fight even though Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing the administration planned to rescind the initial order.

In a separate action, the administration on Tuesday outlined a sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigrants that officials said would result in the swift deportation of many more people without court hearings and target migrants charged with crimes or thought to be dangerous, not just convicts.

New Poll Finds That 80% Of Americans Oppose Sanctuary Cities

A stunning new poll conducted by Harvard-Harris, exclusively for The Hill, found that the overwhelming majority of Americans, 80% in fact, believe that illegal immigrants arrested for crimes should be turned over to federal immigration authorities rather than being harbored in so-called sanctuary cities.  Imagine that, Americans believe that local, state and federal law enforcement officials should actually enforce the law...shocking.

Meanwhile, 52% of those surveyed said they support Trump"s executive order to build a border wall and revoke funding for sanctuary cities while 53% said they support his "immigration ban" that was recently overturned by the 9th Circuit court.

Of course, this is undoubtedly unwelcome news for sanctuary cities across the country that are at risk of losing their federal subsidies for harboring criminal illegal aliens.  As we recently pointed out, just the top 10 sanctuary cities receive roughly $2.3 billion in federal subsidies every year.

As Reuters reports, U.S. President Donald Trump"s attempt to strip municipalities of federal dollars for shielding illegal immigrants threatens $2.27 billion in annual funds for the nation"s ten largest cities, a Reuters analysis of federal grants found. While Trump has the authority to cut some kinds of funding to the cities, cuts to other federal funding would require an act of Congress. The total amount remains unclear, as federal money can be filtered through state governments or granted directly to social-service organizations or other groups. The numbers do not include federal money for law enforcement, which was excluded in the executive order, and programs like Medicaid, which are administered by state governments.

In other results, the poll found that 38% of Americans believe the 9th Circuit"s overturn of Trump"s immigration ban makes the country less safe while 51% believe that the cap on refugees entering the U.S. should be reduced.

A plurality — 38 percent — say the federal judge’s suspension makes the nation less safe. Thirty-six percent said the court’s ruling will have no impact, and 26 percent said it will make the country safer.

Forty-seven percent said allowing refugees into the country has a negative impact on the nation, compared to only 33 percent who said it has a positive effect.

When voters are told that the U.S. is slated to receive 100,000 Syrian refugees, 51 percent said that number should be lower, 34 percent said it is an appropriate number, and 15 percent said the U.S. should allow more.

“While there is broad support for comprehensive immigration reform, there is overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities,” said Harvard–Harris co-director Mark Penn. “The public wants honest immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and that"s very clear from the data.”

“Americans support both comprehensive immigration reform and stronger vetting and reduced refugees — they want a mix of compassion, strong borders,” said Penn. “They see ISIS as the greatest threat to the country and that is spurring concerns about refugee migration.”

And, lest you think the poll was simply the reflection of a Republican "oversample", The Hill notes that the online survey included 2,148 registered voters with a partisan breakdown of 39% Democrat, 30% Republican, 27% independent and 5% other.

And, of course, it didn"t take long for President Trump to share the polling data via twitter...

"Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities" https://t.co/s5QvsJWA6u

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2017

Did The Judges Lie: New Report Finds 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered By Trump Ban

The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump"s travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump"s order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks. In fact, as a new report finds, 72 individuals from the seven "mostly Muslim countries" covered by President Trump"s "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism since 9/11.

As AP first reported, during a hearing in Seattle last week, Judge Robartasked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. When the lawyer said she didn"t know, Robart answered his own question: 

"Let me tell, you, the answer to that is none, as best I can tell. You"re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries and there"s no support for that."

And now, having denied President Trump"s appeal, claiming his policy "would cause irreparable injury," would cause irreparable injury, it seems the entire premise of the seven "mostly muslim" nations" mostly-peaceful, non-terrorist ways are in doubt as The Center for Immigration Studies shows that...

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump"s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks.

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:

• Somalia: 20


• Yemen: 19


• Iraq: 19


• Syria: 7


• Iran: 4


• Libya: 2


• Sudan: 1


• Total: 72

According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.

These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president"s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

Finally, we reminder readers that while Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says his research shows no Americans have been killed in the U.S. at the hands of people from the seven countries - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen - since Sept. 11, it"s not quite right to say no one from those nations has been arrested or accused in an extremist-related plot while living in the U.S.

23 percent of Muslim Americans involved with extremist plots since Sept. 11 had family backgrounds from the seven countries.

So Judge claims ZERO but in fact the number is 72... Those darn "alternative facts" are such trouble... or is it racist, sexist, mysoginist, and bogoted when the liberal judiciary is fact-checked?

55% Of Europeans Agree With Trump: "Muslim Immigration Should Be Banned"

President Donald Trump’s executive order to ban citizens of seven Muslim-majority states from entering the US for 90 days, and temporarily freeze all refugee arrivals (including Syrians indefinitely), has been interpreted widely as an attempt to curtail the inward migration of Muslims, which Trump and his supporters argue pose a threat to national security. It has also been challenged legally, and today a showdown between the DOJ and a San Francisco Court of Appeals is scheduled for 6pm, at which point the Trump order may be formally rejected, forcing Trump to engage the Supreme Court.

While the Trump order has unleashed a firestorm of legal retaliation in the US, Trump’s policy has also generated a backlash among some of Europe’s leaders. Angela Merkel’s spokesman said the chancellor had ‘explained’ the Geneva Convention to the president in a phone call discussing the order, while London Mayor Sadiq Khan argued that the invitation to the president for a state visit to Britain in 2017 should be withdrawn until the ban is rescinded. Meanwhile, leaders of Europe’s populist parties, including Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage and Matteo Salvini, have heaped praise on Trump.

And while the political elite"s positions are clear, a more relevant question is where does the public in European countries stand on the specific issue of Muslim immigration.

Surprisingly, there is evidence to suggest that both Trump and Europe"s right-wing parties reflect an underlying reservoir of majority public support.

According to a new Chatham House survey of more than 10,000 people from 10 European states, we now know what people think about migration from mainly Muslim countries, and as Chatham House notes, "the results are striking and sobering." They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread.

In the survey, carried out prior President Trump’s executive order was announced, respondents were given the following statement: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’. They were then asked to what extent did they agree or disagree with this statement. Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed.

Furthermore, majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%. In short, more than half of Europeans agree with Donald Trump.

Some further details:

Public opposition to further migration from Muslim states is especially intense in Austria, Poland, Hungary, France and Belgium, despite these countries having very different sized resident Muslim populations. In each of these countries, at least 38% of the sample ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement. With the exception of Poland, these countries have either been at the centre of the refugee crisis or experienced terrorist attacks in recent years. It is also worth noting that in most of these states the radical right is, to varying degrees, entrenched as a political force and is looking to mobilize this angst over Islam into the ballot box, either at elections in 2017 or longer term.

The polls also reveal how, across Europe, opposition to Muslim immigration is especially intense among retired, older age cohorts while those aged below 30 are notably less opposed. There is also a clear education divide. Of those with secondary level qualifications, 59% opposed further Muslim immigration. By contrast, less than half of all degree holders supported further migration curbs.

Support is also fractured by where one lives. Of those living in rural, less populated areas, 58% are opposed to further Muslim immigration. Whereas among those based in cities and metropolitan areas just over half agree with the statement and around a quarter are less supportive of a ban. Opposition is also more prominent among ‘left behind’ voters, with nearly two-thirds of those who feel they don’t have control over their own lives supporting the statement. Similarly, 65% of those Europeans who are dissatisfied with their life oppose further migration from Muslim countries. There is also some evidence that public opposition crosses political boundaries, with three-quarters of those who self-classify themselves as on the right of the political spectrum and more than a third of those on the left supporting a halt.

These results echo other similar surveys exploring attitudes to Islam in Europe. In a Pew survey of 10 European countries in 2016, majorities of the public had an unfavorable view of Muslims living in their country in five countries: Hungary (72%), Italy (69%), Poland (66%), Greece (65%), and Spain (50%), although those numbers were lower in the UK (28%), Germany (29%) and France (29%). There was also a widespread perception in many countries that the arrival of refugees would increase the likelihood of terrorism, with a median of 59% across ten European countries holding this view. This mirrors some attitudes in the US.

Study details: the Chatham House Europe Programme, with Kantar Public, surveyed nationally representative samples of the population aged 18 or over in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK. Fieldwork was carried out online using quota sampling (age, gender and region) between 12 December 2016 and 11 January 2017. The total number of respondents was 10,195 (c. 1,000 per country).?

Appeals Court Denies Trump Request To Reinstate Travel Ban

A federal appeals court denied early on Sunday a request from the Department of Justice to immediately restore President Trump"s executive order on immigration and refugees, asking for more court filings before it rules on the matter.

As reported on Saturday night, the DOJ had filed court papers hours earlier seeking an immediate reversal of a ruling Friday against the executive order by U.S. District Judge James Robart of Seattle. Shortly after, the strongly liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request for an immediate ruling, and instead called for written responses to the appeal to be filed with the court later Sunday and Monday. It was awaiting further submissions from Washington and Minnesota states on Sunday, and from the government on Monday.

The government"s appeal said the decision by judge James Robart in Washington poses an immediate harm to the public, thwarts enforcement of an executive order and "second-guesses the president’s national security judgment about the quantum of risk posed by the admission of certain classes of (non-citizens) and the best means of minimizing that risk". Previously, in a seven-page ruling, Judge Robart wrote that he was granting a restraining order against the government in part because the plaintiffs, which included the State of Washington, were likely to win on their constitutional claims. Not halting the president’s order would cause the plaintiffs “irreparable injury,” he wrote.

The court ruling dealt a second consecutive setback in two days to Trump, who has denounced the judge in the state of Washington who blocked his executive order on Friday. In tweets and comments to reporters, the president insisted on Saturday he would get the ban reinstated. On Saturday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, praised the judge’s ruling and said Californians and travelers to the state “can reunite with your family. You can go about your business, including travel, as long as the federal court order stands. Be mindful to carry your legal documents if you are traveling. And know that California’s local public safety officers are there to protect you and not to enforce overreaching federal immigration pronouncements.”

Robart"s adverse ruling, while not the first, had the broadest impact yet on Trump"s executive order, extending the block nationwide. Trump’s executive order already had been hit with dozens of lawsuits as individuals, civil-rights groups and state officials have sought to strike it down on constitutional or other legal grounds, and has resulted in a flurry of temporary rulings.

A federal judge in Boston sided with the Trump administration earlier on Friday by refusing to extend a temporary restraining order he had issued last week. That ruling came before the Seattle order was issued. At a third hearing in Virginia on Friday, a Justice Department lawyer said the order had led to the revocation of more than 100,000 visas—a statement that was quickly contradicted by the State Department, which said the correct figure was fewer than 60,000.

Trump has said the temporary immigration restrictions on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and on all refugees, are necessary to protect the United States from Islamist militants. Critics say they are unjustified and discriminatory.

Washington Federal Judge Robart"s order and the appeal ruling have created what may be a short-lived opportunity for travelers from the seven affected countries to get into the United States while the legal uncertainty continues.

While the Trump administration seeks to overturn Judge Robart’s order, the Departments of State and Homeland Security had no choice but to begin complying with it. If the administration’s appeal is successful, however, the agencies could be forced to change direction yet again the WSJ reports.

Legal issues around the order also led to an extraordinary standoff earlier this week when acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, instructed Justice Department lawyers not to defend it and said she had serious concerns about its legality. The White House fired her within hours and installed Virginia U.S. Attorney Dana Boente in the post, who said he would defend the order.

We now await Trump"s angry response, as a Supreme Court showdown over the Immigration executive order appears inevitable.