• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

Latest Travel Ban Will Weaken, Not Strengthen, America

On September 24, 2017, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation, titled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” establishing a new travel ban with visa restrictions on Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Restrictions vary between countries; DOS has provided information and a chart on the various levels of travel restrictions for nationals of the eight countries.

The new orders will weaken America. It makes the world look at America as the opposite of a welcoming country. It isolates America.

Hawaii and Maryland District Courts Stop Implementation of President Trump’s Travel/Refugee Ban

The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the government from enforcing or implementing Section 2 (90-day travel ban) and Section 6 (120-day ban on U.S. refugee program) of the March 6, 2017, Executive Order (EO 13780) nationwide. Also, early today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued an injunction barring enforcement nationwide of Section 2(c) of the order. DOS announced that it will suspend implementation of the provisions of the Executive Order as required by the relevant court orders, and that U.S. embassies and consulates will continue to process visas for nationals of Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. In a press release, AILA welcomed the issuance of the two TROs, with AILA President William Stock noting, “Once again, our judiciary system has spoken and has ruled that the imposition of a blanket travel ban on nationals of six Muslim-majority countries raises serious constitutional questions.”

Wall Street Journal: Immigrant Advocates Hail Ruling Blocking Trump’s Travel Ban

The Wall Street Journal reports that immigrant advocacy groups hailed a federal judge in Hawaii’s ruling on Wednesday that blocked President Trump’s revised travel ban from taking effect. However, they noted that the continuing legal battle over the ban casts an air of uncertainty over the immigration system and has already disrupted refugee resettlement and long-planned trips to the United States.

5 States suing against Travel Ban

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said during a press conference on Thursday that his office is filing a motion asking a federal judge in Seattle to rule that an existing injunction against Trump’s earlier travel ban order applies to parallel portions of the president’s new directive. The states of Washington and Minnesota obtained the broadest injunction against Trump’s original order last month. Oregon was formally admitted to the case on Thursday, and the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts announced plans yesterday for their states to join the effort.

New DHS memo on Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion

As with the other parts of the memo, it is wide open, vague and ambiguous. States officers can arrest and detain if ‘probable cause’, but there is no definition as to how it defines this term and under what conditions.

No more excluding any classes from prosecutorial discretion. Thus, it seems wide open to try to get as many foreign nationals as possible.

Be prepared to fight in Court.

More on new Memo by DHS on priorities to remove

The DHS memo seems to now want to greatly expand expedited removal of foreign nationals.

The memo goes on to State that local and State enforcement officers need to enforce U.S. Immigration Laws

There will certainly be a wide variety of lawsuits on this memo because it is vague, ambiguous and far too broad and puts persons who are not removable under the law into its net.

New DHS Memo on Enforcement of Immigration Laws

All prior enforcement memos are rescinded except those dealing with issues when children were brought to the U.s.

No longer are certain foreign nationals  exempted from enforcement. 

The memo seems to now prioritize removability actions against those persons with crimes and fraud

The new priorities (which may be able to be fought in Court) are 1. those convicted of ANY criminal offense, 2. charged but not convicted, 3. committed acts which constitute a criminal offense, but no arrest or conviction, 4. committed fraud against the government, 5) abused any program to receive public benefits, 6) subject to final order of removal or 7) are deemed by an immigration officer to be a risk to public safety

Essentially – it leaves WIDE OPEN interpretation and attempts to remove foreign nationals who do not have removable offenses under the law.

Trump to rescind January 27, 2017 Muslim Ban

The Department of Justice indicated in a February 16, 2017 court filing that President Trump intends to rescind the January 27, 2017 Executive Order and issue a new order in its place. DOJ urged the court to “hold its consideration of the case until the President issues the new Order,” and the Ninth Circuit subsequently issued an order staying en banc proceedings, pending further order of the court. In a February 16, 2017 news conference, President Trump also stated that he plans to issue a new Executive Order on immigration next week to “protect our country.”

Lawsuits filed across the Country in opposition to Trump’s Executive Order of a Muslim Ban

In response to Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO), attorneys and advocacy groups across the country filed lawsuits in federal court this weekend on behalf of petitioners who were denied entry to the United States pursuant to the EO. First, a court in New York issued a nationwide, emergency stay of removal preventing deportation for individuals with valid visas and approved refugee applications affected by the EO. Going a bit further, a court in Massachusetts barred federal officials from detaining or removing individuals subject to the EO. Also, a court in Virginia ordered federal officials to provide lawyers access to “all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport,” and barred officials from deporting covered individuals for the next seven days. Finally, a court in Washington State barred the government from deporting two unnamed individuals from the United States.

Many Oppose Trump’s Executive Order on Muslim Ban

A broad range of voices, including government officials, academic institutions, faith leaders, and civil rights groups, have expressed their opposition to President Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order targeting Muslims and refugees. Notably, consular officials, Foreign Service Officers, and members of the Civil Service released a dissent memo. In addition, former cabinet secretaries, senior government officials, diplomats, military service members, and intelligence community professionals sent a letter to DHS Secretary John Kelly and other government officials opposing the EO.

%d bloggers like this: