Posts

Reporter Hijacks Press Conference to Grill Psaki on ‘Racist’ Travel Restrictions

A reporter interrupted Thursday’s press conference and confronted White House press secretary Jen Psaki over President Joe Biden’s “racist” travel restrictions against African countries over the Omicron variant.

The Biden administration, along with other nations, imposed travel restrictions on South Africa and its neighboring countries on Nov. 29, with the advice of White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci. South Africa had the first confirmed case of the variant, which has quickly spread to other parts of the globe.

Today News Africa reporter Simon Ateba said that South Africa only accounts for 6% of the Omicron variant cases, but that nearly 70 countries have solely imposed restrictions on African countries. He challenged Psaki on the U.S. imposing restrictions on only eight African countries, rather than on all 57 countries that have confirmed cases of the variant.

“What would you say to those who believe that this is a racist ban, that it is only on African and black African nations?” Ateba pressed.

“Simon, I would convey to you that that is absolutely not the intention, that is not our policy,” Psaki said. “This was a recommendation of the health and medical experts because there was a large number of cases in South Africa, and they made a decision early on out of an abundance of caution to protect the American people to slow the spread of the variant.” (Read more from “Reporter Hijacks Press Conference to Grill Psaki on ‘Racist’ Travel Restrictions” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Analyst: Travel Ban Ruling Is a ‘Fantastic Fulfillment of Osama Bin Laden’s Vision’

On MSNBC’s Tuesday broadcast of “Deadline: White House,” former 2008 McCain presidential campaign manager and current MSNBC political analyst Steve Schmidt reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Trump administration’s travel ban by ranting that Trump had fulfilled “Osama bin Laden’s vision” for America by implementing the restrictions.

Despite not all countries on the travel ban list being Muslim-majority nations, Schmidt was still convinced that the ban imposes a religious test on Muslims who want to enter the United States. . .

SCHMIDT: “Well, you know, I’m thinking about a former special agent of the FBI ?Ali Soufan. Ali Soufan, with John O’Neal came very, very, very close to disrupting the attacks on 9/11. He was a Lebanese immigrant and a Muslim. Is America better off with Ali Soufan here? I would argue he is.

“And so, today was a fantastic fulfillment of Osama bin Laden’s vision by Donald J. Trump. What Osama bin Laden hoped to provoke was a war of civilization, a war between the West and one billion Muslims. And so, what Donald Trump and this Muslim ban signaled to the world is that Muslims are not welcome here, that this is — whether the conservative justices say that, in fact, this is about executive power — the President’s clear intent was to impose a religious test, and that is as fundamentally un-American as anything that he’s done over the course of this presidency.

“The only force in the world that has the power to defeat extremist Islamic radicalism is moderate Islam and moderate Islam was dealt a big setback today by this shortsighted, dangerous policy that, again, abrogates all the fine traditions of our country from freedom of religion to welcoming the renewal of the country’s life blood with immigration.”

(Read more from “Analyst: Travel Ban Ruling Is a ‘Fantastic Fulfillment of Osama Bin Laden’s Vision’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Court Partly Reinstates Trump Travel Ban, Fall Arguments Set

The Supreme Court is letting a limited version of the Trump administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.

The court said Monday the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen could be enforced as long as they lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.

Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts. (Read more from “Court Partly Reinstates Trump Travel Ban, Fall Arguments Set” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Bashes Court for Upholding Travel Ban Block

President Donald Trump chastised the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Twitter early Tuesday morning for upholding a Hawaii Judge’s March ruling that blocked the implementation of Trump’s proposed travel ban.

Ironically, the court’s opinion cited one of Trump’s tweets in an effort to demonstrate the president believes it is the seven predominantly Muslim nations included in the executive order that are “inherently dangerous,” rather than considering the 180 million individuals who he barred from entering the country.

(Read more from “Trump Bashes Court for Upholding Travel Ban Block” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Signs New Ninety Day Travel Ban

President Donald Trump on Monday signed a new version of his temporary travel ban, aiming to withstand court challenges while still barring new visas for citizens from six Muslim-majority countries and shutting down the U.S. refugee program.

The revised travel order leaves Iraq off the list of banned countries but still affects would-be visitors from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya.

Trump privately signed the new order Monday while Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions formally unveiled the new edict. The low-key rollout was a contrast to the first version of the order, signed in a high-profile ceremony at the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes as Secretary of Defense James Mattis stood by Trump’s side. (Read more from “Trump Signs New Ninety Day Travel Ban” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Experts Differ on Whether Trump’s New Travel Ban Makes America Safer

President Donald Trump sought to settle legal and political concerns Monday with his revised executive order pausing travel from six countries plagued by terrorism—and temporarily keeping out all refugees.

While the order contains notable revisions—including removing restrictions on Iraq, a crucial counterterrorism partner, and applying restrictions only to prospective new travelers—its intent remains the same.

“The executive order allows for the proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals,” the first sentence reads.

In making the case for the policy, the revised order contains a clause noting about 300 pending FBI counterterror investigations involve individuals who came to the U.S. as refugees.

Government officials declined to say how many of the 300 are from the six countries targeted in the order, or how many are currently refugees or simply were refugees at one time. The administration also did not say whether any of the 300 actually have been charged with a crime.

“As threats to our security continue to evolve and change, common sense dictates we continually re-evaluate and reassess the system we rely upon to protect our country,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said during a Monday press conference announcing the revised order, where he was joined by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John Kelly, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

“While no system can be made completely infallible,” Tillerson said, “the American people can have high confidence we are identifying ways to improve the vetting process and keep terrorists from entering our country.”

National security and diplomatic experts credit the Trump administration for changes, but some continue to question the target of the order—foreign nationals from countries already deemed terror threats by the Obama administration and Congress—at a time when recent terrorist attacks against the U.S. have been perpetrated by American citizens or legal residents.

“The Trump administration has taken out all of the things that caused courts to object, which is good news,” said James Jeffrey, U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2010 to 2012 and deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration.

“There is nothing illegal or objectionable about it. But the substance of the policy is small potatoes either way,” Jeffrey, who is now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, added in an interview with The Daily Signal. “There is not much to get excited about and not much in here that will make America safer.”

‘Big Step Forward’

The new order addresses many of the concerns that followed Trump’s announcement of the original directive five weeks ago. Federal courts froze that order, which critics said resulted in confusion and chaos at airports and some labeled a “Muslim ban.”

As the administration evaluates how to enhance vetting procedures, Trump’s new order bars for 90 days the issuance of new visas for citizens and residents of six countries. It also pauses for 120 days resettlement to the U.S. of refugees from anywhere in the world.

Syrian refugees no longer are subject to an indefinite ban, as they were in Trump’s first order.

The 90-day travel restriction applies to Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Libya, six Muslim-majority and terrorism-prone countries that were contained in the original order.

Jeffrey, like other experts, lauded the Trump administration for removing Iraq from this list, saying doing so “makes a hell of a lot of sense” because Baghdad has a functioning government that is allied with the U.S. to fight the Islamic State, the terrorist group also known as ISIS.

“The deletion of Iraq is a big step forward,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, in an email to The Daily Signal. “Of the remaining governments, most are adversarial, nonexistent/weak, or at best lukewarm in their willingness to work with the United States.”

“Thus there is a certain logic in the list—even if I consider the need for such a list unpersuasive, given where most attacks have originated in the past and given our existing rigorous vetting practices,” O’Hanlon said.

Treating Visa Holders Fairly

When the government lifts the suspension on refugees, the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. will be capped at 50,000 for fiscal year 2017. The U.S. admitted 84,995 refugees in fiscal year 2016, the most since 1999.

The new order takes effect March 16, and does not apply to individuals from the six countries who had valid visas at 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 27. In addition, travelers who hold valid visas and are in transit still will be allowed to enter the U.S.

The order also provides other exceptions not contained in the initial order for travelers from the six countries who are legal permanent residents of the United States, dual nationals who use a passport from another country, and individuals who already have been granted asylum or refu­gee status.

“This revision makes clear that the focus of the order is on dealing with the emerging threat of foreign fighters coming out of the region to the U.S. rather than punishing or ostracizing Muslim peoples,” said James Carafano, a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation.

“It is also notable how the administration has gone out of its way to accommodate current visa holders to ensure they are treated fairly and not penalized by a plan that focused on future threats,” Carafano said.

Facing Complex Challenges

Critics of Trump’s order counter that none of the recent terrorist attacks in the U.S.—from San Bernardino to Orlando—were perpetrated by anyone from the nations listed in the travel ban. Nationals from the countries targeted have killed no one on American soil.

A recent Department of Homeland Security report found that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.”

The Trump administration has fought the findings of that report, which was cited in recent media accounts. The administration argues it was misleading and excluded classified information that would show a more dangerous threat.

“When you look at the six countries subject to the travel ban, they are either amidst a civil war or a state sponsor of terrorism,” Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the Treasury Department, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

“From a logical standpoint, it would make sense to have greater scrutiny when looking at immigrants or visitors from these countries,” added Schanzer, who is currently vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “With that said, what we really need is to see an assessment from the intelligence community about those risks, and it’s unclear if we have that here.”

In a briefing with reporters Monday afternoon, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the list of six targeted countries could expand if the U.S. government, after reviewing vetting procedures, finds gathering and sharing of information to be unsatisfactory.

‘Crisis Will Continue’

Under the order, the Department of Homeland Security, State Department, Office of National Intelligence, and Justice Department are to develop “uniform screening standards for all immigration programs government-wide.”

Schanzer argued that the United States and other Western countries will continue to confront challenges related to refugee and immigration flows from countries devastated by terrorism unless the U.S. does more to help resolve underlying conflicts.

“We would not be having this flow of refugees and migrants if it were not for several conflicts taking place across the Middle East,” Schanzer said, adding:

We are not trying to solve these conflicts. As long as we are merely managing these conflicts, this crisis will continue. To a certain extent, all of this is a distraction from challenges we face, which boil down to ISIS and the Islamic Republic of Iran wreaking havoc across the Middle East.

(For more from the author of “Experts Differ on Whether Trump’s New Travel Ban Makes America Safer” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.