Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Friday, February 3, 2017

Want to Come to the U.S. to Visit Disneyland or Yosemite Park? Want to Go to College Here? Best Apply Two Years in Advance for Your Visa

Apparently the Administration of President* Trump intends to make it almost impossible for tourists, students and otehr people to visit the U.S.
When President Donald Trump issued his executive order on immigration last week, it was the travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries that dominated headlines—leaving hundreds of people in limbo, provoking airport protests, and raising questions about whether the U.S. was targeting religion in the guise of a new security rule.

But immigration lawyers who have read the order carefully are now increasingly concerned that one of its provisions could have much wider repercussions, affecting literally every foreign visitor to America, from tourists to diplomats.

The little-noticed section, appearing immediately after the travel ban, calls for the government to develop a “uniform screening standard and procedure” for all individuals seeking to enter the United States. As written, it appears to require all visitors to go through the same vetting measures, regardless of where they come from or how long they intend to stay.
More than 10 million people traveled to the U.S. on a visa in 2015—including immigrants and nonimmigrants—while tens of millions visited the United States without a visa. The section calls for the secretary of state, secretary of homeland security, director of national intelligence and FBI director to develop a “uniform screening standard and procedure” for all of them. That could slow travel to the U.S. to a crawl, upending the tourism industry and creating massive headaches for companies with foreign employees who frequently travel to the U.S. Foreign airline employees would have to go through significant vetting procedures every time they enter here.
Fifty million tourists visit the U.S. each year. Apparently Shadow President Bannon wants to choke that down to maybe fifty, by making it as hard to visit the U.S. as it is to visit North Korea (or it was to visit the USSR).


B said...

Since there was NONE before, and we "lost" so many, I can't see it as a problem, if the standards for vetting are somewhat reasonable.

Have to wait and see.

I am led to believe by several university registrars that I know that they "lose" a bit over 3 per thousand students each year, average...and the majority are from Pakistan and Iran and other Arab countries. Not saying they are terrorists, nor anything more than folks who get a student visa and them go walkabout, but the numbers are disturbing. Mostly doesn't happen the other way...

Of course, until we get our borders under control, this is a waste of time.

Other countries have restrictions, why shouldn't we? I think this is gonna end up that if you don't have an arrest record, then no issues. Or you simply will have to get a sign off from your local equivalent of the FBI.

The New York Crank said...

Well! Making it difficult and unpleasant to visit the United States ought to help bring jobs back to the American hotel industry, travel industry, and to the thousands of restaurants that serve tourists around the nation.

The only good thing about the Trump administration (and it's admittedly a bad thing as well) is that the left hand doesn't see what the right hand is doing, and vice-versa.

Yours crankily,
The New York Crank

Anonymous said...

Headline: Trump Walks On Water!

You're of the 'Trump can't swim' camp. Duly noted. Do you often fire employees before they have had a chance to prove themselves? What pray tell has President Trump done yet so far which 1) exceeds his constitutional authority; 2) that previous presidents have not done?

Mike said...

I guess we get it that you hate Trump. What if his criminal opponent had won?
I ain't real fond of him as a person, but he has his heart in the right place re: America. Why not give him a chance to do some good, if possible.

CenterPuke88 said...

His heart is in his bank account. Donnie has already damaged America internationally, and helped our enemies. His revocation of visas will be found to be illegal, as he exceeded his authority. He spends more time tweeting about overnight TV ratings than dealing with policy. Congratulations MAGA-fans, you asked for it, you got it. And you'll continue to get it, and get it some more. His first action hurt the middle class (Federal Mortgage Insurance premium cuts reversed), now he wants to allow financial advisors to,be allowed to continue fleecing people...

B said...

CP: Show me where he exceeded his authority...please. Show the statutes that make his actions illegal.

And here is a hint for you: He is already rich....he doesn't need more.

And he hasn't helped our enemies. If you think so, please quit saying so and explain why you think that.

CenterPuke88 said...

So, revoking a visa isn't the simple process you seem to think it is. As a legal document, issued by the U.S. Government, it has certain rules and laws attached. I don't know if you noticed, but his ban has been stayed nationwide, with an order detailing the illegality and the likelihood of the plaintiffs winning their Constitutional claims.

As for your hint, why do you think he's rich? There is genuine disagreement over his true net worth, and he refuses to provide anything verifying it. Are you sure?

He has already reversed sanctions on Russia, he just turned the banks that cratered the economy loose again, and he's good with a financial adviser profiting from giving you advise that isn't the best for you...who are our enemies, all,of the above and then some.

Oh, as for statues, remember that signing of the immigration ban...the document got trashed, they referenced the wrong sections of USC, they had to have another quiet signing a little later...they are playing games, and don't understand they are ruining people.

Tod Germanica said...

This is great! I'll have Grand Canyon, Death Valley and Yosemite all to myself. We don't need these dirty yurpeans over here clogging up the cities and parks anyway. They come over here with a dirty shirt and a ten dollar bill and never change either one. Who needs 'em?

dinthebeast said...

" Show the statutes that make his actions illegal."

EO11030 for starters, and that's just about how to actually make an EO. It goes downhill from there.

-Doug in Oakland

Mark Rossmore said...

*Show statutes:*
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-- 14th Amendment

Note that the last part specifically says "any person"--not citizen--must be granted equal protection. This applies to all those people with green cards, visas, etc. who were in compliance with all the U.S. laws concerning them. They have now, without due process (5th amendment), been denied that equal protection. The clause also does not specify that this person must be within the U.S., only that they must be subject to its jurisdiction.

Also of note: the intent of a document is also at stake here, not just the specific language. Rudy Giuliani was interviewed and flat-out stated that Trump wanted a Muslim ban, and was tasked with white-washing it to make it appear constitutional.

The intent is therefore subject to scrutiny by the judiciary branch. That Giuliani interview was noted by Acting A.G. Yates as one reason for her dissent. Plyler v. Doe is one case where the intent overruled the language.

Comrade Misfit said...

Mike, your guy won. Saying "he's better than Hillary would have been" is a false argument. We don't know what Clinton would have done. Did you know that your guy was going to be besties with Wall Street? He sure didn't talk that way during the campaign.

DTWND said...

Mark Rossmore - boom! (Drops the mike)