Showing posts with label Muslim ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim ban. Show all posts

Saturday, November 16, 2024

"Abandon Hope"

Rabiul Chowdhury, Chair of the Muslim group ‘Abandon Harris’ in PA is complaining that Trump won in PA and MI because of them and now they aren’t happy because he seems to be abandoning his campaign promises to them to side with Israel: “Trump won because of us and we’re not happy with his Secretary of State pick and others.” Imagine that.

  Meidas Touch
Indeed. Did they forget that among the very first things Trump did in his first term was to ban Muslims from entering the country? They abandoned Harris in a move to cut off their noses to spite their own faces. Hard to feel sorry for them.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 11/17/2024:


Sorry.  Unable to work up any sympathy.


Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Cleaning up Trump's mess - ongoing

People who were denied entry to the United States because of former President Donald Trump’s travel ban on 13 mostly Muslim-majority and African countries can seek new decisions or submit new applications, the US Department of State has said.

President Joe Biden overturned Trump’s so-called Muslim ban on January 20, his first day in office, calling it “a stain on our national conscience”.

  alJazeera
The United States on Monday revoked a sanctions waiver for Israeli mining magnate Dan Gertler that was issued in the last days of the Trump administration.

The Treasury Department said exempting Gertler from sanctions was “inconsistent with America’s strong foreign policy interests in combating corruption around the world,” specifically in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

[...]

The Treasury imposed the sanctions in December 2017 and June 2018, accusing Gertler of using his friendship with Democratic Republic of the Congo’s former president, Joseph Kabila, to win sweetheart mining deals worth more than a billion dollars.

The Trump administration eased the sanctions in a secret action in its last week in office in January, a licence granted by the Treasury Department showed.

While the licence did not remove Gertler, an associate and more than 30 of his companies from the sanctions list, it authorised, until January 31, 2022, “all transactions and activities” otherwise prohibited by sanctions against them.

The original designation of Gertler under the Magnitsky Sanctions programme made clear “Mr Gertler engaged in extensive public corruption,” the Treasury said in a statement on Monday.

The sanctions had prohibited Gertler from doing business with US citizens, companies or banks, effectively barring him from doing transactions in dollars.

  alJazeera
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Saturday, January 11, 2020

In the era of Trump

Governor Greg Abbott of Texas on Friday became the first governor in the country to refuse to accept refugees after President Donald Trump signed an executive order empowering local jurisdictions to consent to the federal programme.

"At this time, the state and non-profit organisations have a responsibility to dedicate available resources to those who are already here, including refugees, migrants and the homeless," Abbott, a Republican, said in his letter to the US State Department. "As a result, Texas cannot consent," to refugee resettlement this fiscal year, he said.

  alJazeera
The White House is considering dramatically expanding its much-litigated travel ban to additional countries amid a renewed election-year focus on immigration by United States President Donald Trump.

[...]

A document outlining the plans - timed to coincide with the third anniversary of Trump's January 2017 executive order - has been circulating in the White House. But the countries that would be affected are blacked out, according to two of the people, sources who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the measure has yet to be finalised.

[...]

It is unclear exactly how many countries would be included in the expansion, but two of the sources said that seven countries - the majority of which are majority Muslim - would be added to the list. The most recent iteration of the ban includes restrictions on five majority-Muslim nations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as Venezuela and North Korea.

A different source said the expansion could focus on several countries that were included when Trump announced the first iteration of the ban but that were later removed amid rounds of contentious litigation. Iraq, Sudan and Chad, for instance, had originally been affected by the order, which the US Supreme Court upheld in a 5-4 vote after the administration released a watered-down version intended to withstand legal scrutiny.

  alJazeera

Monday, January 28, 2019

The travel ban waiver sham

Two years ago this week, President Trump signed an executive order banning travelers from a number of Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The fallout has been dire.

[...]

Our organization, the International Refugee Assistance Project, was among the groups that filed the first challenge to the executive order, and we won a series of injunctions temporarily blocking the ban from being enforced. But in June the Supreme Court upheld a modified version of the ban in a 5-to-4 decision. The majority sided with the Department of Justice, which had claimed that a “robust” waiver process would allow citizens from the blacklisted countries to enter the United States if they met certain reasonable criteria.

[...]

This assurance was a key rationale for the court’s decision. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion argued that a waiver process would provide humanitarian exceptions to the ban and thus supported “the government’s claim of a legitimate national security interest.” However, in their separate dissents, Justice Stephen Breyer raised serious concerns about the waiver process, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that it was a “sham.”

It turns out they were right.The waiver process is opaque, arbitrary and unreasonably harsh, and it has not mitigated the ban’s effects on thousands of families in dire circumstances. It makes a mockery of the rule of law.

The waiver provision in the ban stipulates that those barred by their nationality from entering the United States may be granted waivers if they satisfy a three-part test: Applicants must show that being denied entry would cause “undue hardship,” that their entry would be “in the national interest” and that their entry would “not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States.” But there are no published instructions as to how or where to apply for a waiver. Nor is there a form to fill out. This is in direct violation of the text of the ban, which explicitly directs the secretaries of state and of homeland security to clarify the process.

[...]

Waivers appear to be given reliably only when much publicity is brought to bear.

[...]

We have no way of knowing how many people have tried to obtain a waiver. What we do know is that the State Department has interpreted the ban’s provisions in an excessively harsh manner: Between Dec. 8, 2017 and April 30, 2018, according to the only data the administration has made available, roughly 98 percent of people who applied for a visa did not receive a waiver.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we know that the State Department will not even consider an applicant’s home country conditions when evaluating whether the travel ban imposes undue hardship.

  NYT
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, January 4, 2019

The Trump DOJ

The Justice Department has acknowledged errors and deficiencies in a controversial report issued a year ago that implied a link between terrorism in the United States and immigration, but — for the second and final time — officials have declined to retract or correct the document.

[...]

The report was written in compliance with President Trump’s March 2017 executive order halting immigration from six majority-Muslim countries.

[...]

Released by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, the report stated that 402 of 549 individuals — nearly 3 in 4 — convicted of international terrorism charges since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were foreign-born.

[...]

At least 189 of the 549 people convicted were caught up in an investigation with a link to international terrorism but not charged with an offense directly related to terrorism, Berwick said, citing Justice Department data. It is unclear how many were foreign-born.

[...]

The report included about 100 foreign-born individuals who were extradited to the United States to stand trial for terrorism-related crimes committed overseas, without clarifying the reason they were brought to the country, Berwick said. That is misleading because the report creates a false impression that those extradited came in as immigrants, he said.

[...]

Several government watchdog and civil liberty groups in May sued the two agencies in two federal courts, seeking a retraction or correction under the little-known Information Quality Act. The agencies refused, and the courts stayed the lawsuits to allow time for an administrative appeal.

Now, after two rounds, the Justice Department has told the groups it will not retract or correct the document. Rather, “in future reports, the department can strive to minimize the potential for misinterpretation."

  WaPo
Bullshit.
“This is the government’s statement on the risk of terrorism presented by foreign-born individuals in the United States, and it’s critical that it be accurate — not just because the law requires it but because they have a duty to the American people to accurately report information of this type,” said Ben Berwick, counsel for Protect Democracy, one of the groups that sued the government and is representing the others in court.

[...]

One flaw the Justice Department acknowledged was the report’s assertion that between 2003 and 2009, immigrants were convicted of 69,929 sex offenses, which “in most instances constitutes gender-based violence against women.”
That's the ultimate, time-tested biggie: brown men are raping our white women.
The nearly 70,000 offenses spanned a period from 1955 to 2010 — 55 years, not six; the data covered arrests, not convictions; and one arrest could be for multiple offenses, [Berwick] said, citing the General Accountability Office, which provided the underlying data.

[...]

The coalition of groups is considering whether to return to court.
Please do.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, July 23, 2018

About that Muslim ban

Want more proof that the only thing that Trump has been doing since inaugurated is what he intended to do all along - that is, enriching himself?


Saturday, June 30, 2018

We don't need no steenkeen UN

The U.N.’s migration agency snubbed the Trump administration’s candidate to lead it on Friday, a major blow to U.S. leadership of a body addressing one of the world’s most pressing issues — and only the second time that it won’t be run by an American since 1951.

Portuguese Socialist and former European Union commissioner Antonio Vitorino won a race to be the next director-general of the International Organization for Migration.

[...]

Trump has also yanked the United States out of the Global Compact for Migration — a fact that several diplomats, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record about the balloting, cited as a worrying sign about U.S. policies on an issue that has vast implications around the world.

[...]

“This IOM election really was not about Ken Isaacs, for whom I have a lot of respect as a humanitarian,” [Mark Hetfield, a self-described friend of Isaacs who heads the humanitarian group HIAS] said. “The election was an international referendum rejecting President Trump and his xenophobic, Islamophobic and isolationist policies.”

  TPM
That goes without saying that it's about Trump, but it's also about the US candidate: Ken Isaacs.
Isaacs himself had been on the defensive over retweets and other social media comments that some critics viewed as anti-Muslim, so much so that he shut down his Twitter account. After that, he carefully stage-managed his media appearances and kept to script — with State Department handlers advising him or in tow.

Isaacs, a vice president at the evangelical Christian humanitarian group Samaritan’s Purse led by Pastor Franklin Graham, met with dozens of government officials during his months-long bid — working diligently to put to rest suspicions and pointing to his track record in the field and as a manager.

[...]

Playing in Isaacs’ favor, along with the legacy of U.S. leadership, was money: The United States is traditionally the single biggest donor to the IOM, followed closely by the European Union.

One diplomat said “the change is surprising,” before alluding to Trump: “Maybe he will get the message.”
The message he'll get is he has to hit back.

I'm waiting for the day Trump kicks the UN out of the US.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, June 29, 2018

Activist judges: losing faith in the US Constitution

First Citizens United, now the Muslim ban.  It turns out the US Constitution wasn't bullet proof. 

Listen to Mehdi Hasan's interview of Rep. Keith Ellison and activist Debbie Almontaser regarding the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Donald Trump's Muslim ban.  This, together with the child internment policy at the border, make up the Constitutional crisis people keep warning about, and don't seem to recognize when it hits.

It's hard not to give up on this country; maybe they can help us.

Deconstructed:  The White Supremacy Court Upholds the Muslim Ban

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

America down the wrong path



May they rot in a hell filled with people of color wearing turbans and carrying scimitars.

Yes, there will be Trump tweet gloating.

You don't even have to wait for it to begin.






Sadly, there aren't enough reasonable observers left in the US.

Monday, January 22, 2018

Lie after lie after lie

Working off the 549 federal international-terrorism convictions tallied by the Justice Department, the document stated: “An analysis conducted by DHS determined that approximately 73 percent (402 of these 549 individuals) were foreign-born.”

[...]

[The] assertion meant to bolster Donald Trump’s cherished Muslim-focused ban on entering the country. And the report put the claim in the mouths of an agency assembled to keep Americans safe after 9/11: the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

[...]

But the Department of Homeland Security did not perform that analysis.

[...]

According to a government source familiar with the episode, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ office took charge of the report’s assemblage of statistics—which some terrorism analysts consider highly misleading—and sent it to DHS Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen for her imprimatur after it was all but finalized.

  Daily Beast
She's proving to be a right twat, isn't she? Of course, to be fair to her, that could be said of the entire Trump administration.
Career professional analysts at DHS communicated to the Justice Department that the data sought for the report simply did not exist within their department. DHS, multiple sources said, does not track or correlate international terrorism data by citizenship or country of origin, and have warned the Trump administration that doing so risks a misleading portrait of both terrorism and immigration.

[...]

“The Trump administration is trying to turn counterterrorism into an immigration issue,” said Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina, where he tracks Muslim-American involvement in terrorism.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Evil and incompetence in equal measure drags out Trump's Muslim ban plans

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Seattle ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority in the latest iteration of his administration’s travel ban, which mostly targets Muslim–majority countries.

The ruling follows an earlier decision by a federal judge in Hawaii who called Trump’s modified travel ban unlawful, according to The New York Times.

[...]

The ban currently is in its third version since Trump took office.

[...]

But this doesn’t signal the end of the travel ban, however, as the appeals court put its decision on hold pending the outcome of a similar appeal in the federal Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in in Richmond, VA, and ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s travel ban can be fully implemented while legal challenges against it move forward. And whatever the outcomes of both the 9th and 4th courts, it will be the Supreme Court that will determine its final fate.

  Splinter
Which sounds to me like it's a done deal, just not right this moment.
[Only a few weeks into his term] Mr. Trump had dispatched federal officers to the nation’s airports to stop travelers from several Muslim countries from entering the United States in a dramatic demonstration of how he would deliver on his campaign promise to fortify the nation’s borders.

But so many foreigners had flooded into the country since January, he vented to his national security team, that it was making a mockery of his pledge. Friends were calling to say he looked like a fool, Mr. Trump said.

  NYT
Maybe they just meant his hair.
Late to his own meeting and waving a sheet of numbers, President Trump stormed into the Oval Office one day in June, plainly enraged.

[...]

The document listed how many immigrants had received visas to enter the United States in 2017.

More than 2,500 were from Afghanistan, a terrorist haven, the president complained.

Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They “all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there.

Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never “go back to their huts” in Africa.

[...]

As the meeting continued, John F. Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security, and Rex W. Tillerson, the secretary of state, tried to interject, explaining that many were short-term travelers making one-time visits. But as the president continued, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Miller turned their ire on Mr. Tillerson, blaming him for the influx of foreigners and prompting the secretary of state to throw up his arms in frustration. If he was so bad at his job, maybe he should stop issuing visas altogether, Mr. Tillerson fired back.
They're emotional infants. The lot of them. There IS no adult in the room.
Tempers flared and Mr. Kelly asked that the room be cleared of staff members.
Like they're the ones who aren't adult? Or maybe just to keep them from witnessing any further evidence that their bosses are lunatics.
But even after the door to the Oval Office was closed, aides could still hear the president berating his most senior advisers.
Haha. They stood outside the door and listened.
“General Kelly, General McMaster, Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Nielsen and all other senior staff actually in the meeting deny these outrageous claims,” she said, referring to the current White House chief of staff, the national security adviser and the secretaries of state and homeland security. “It’s both sad and telling The New York Times would print the lies of their anonymous ‘sources’ anyway.”
Just because the claims were outrageous doesn't mean they weren't true.
While the White House did not deny the overall description of the meeting, officials strenuously insisted that Mr. Trump never used the words “AIDS” or “huts” to describe people from any country.
Because that would be sooooo out of character.
“He’s always been fearful where other cultures are concerned and always had anxiety about food and safety when he travels,” said Michael D’Antonio, who interviewed him for the biography “The Truth About Trump.” “His objectification and demonization of people who are different has festered for decades.”

[...]

Democrats and some Republicans recoiled, calling Mr. Trump’s messaging damaging and divisive. But for the candidate, the idea of securing the country against outsiders with a wall had intoxicating appeal, though privately, he acknowledged that it was a rhetorical device to whip up crowds when they became listless.

[...]

[Trump's first] travel ban [failure in the courts was] a lesson for Mr. Trump and his aides on the dangers of dictating a major policy change without involving the people who enforce it. This time, instead of shutting out those officials, they worked to tightly control the process.

In previous years, State Department officials had recommended a refugee level to the president. Now, Mr. Miller told officials the number would be determined by the Department of Homeland Security under a new policy that treated the issue as a security matter, not a diplomatic one.

When he got word that the Office of Refugee Resettlement had drafted a 55-page report showing that refugees were a net positive to the economy, Mr. Miller swiftly intervened, requesting a meeting to discuss it. The study never made it to the White House; it was shelved in favor of a three-page list of all the federal assistance programs that refugees used.
Stephen Miller is simply evil. He's Trump's wannabe Dick Cheney, but only because Trump is not smart enough to be his own Dick Cheney.
In September, a third version of the president’s travel ban was issued with little fanfare and new legal justifications. Then, Mr. Trump overruled objections from diplomats, capping refugee admissions at 45,000 for 2018, the lowest since 1986. In November, the president ended a humanitarian program that granted residency to 59,000 Haitians to since a 2010 earthquake ravaged their country.

As the new year approached, officials began considering a plan to separate parents from their children when families are caught entering the country illegally, a move that immigrant groups called draconian.

[...]

During a fall dinner with Democratic leaders, Mr. Trump explored the possibility of a bargain to legalize Dreamers in exchange for border security.

Mr. Trump even told Republicans recently that he wanted to think bigger, envisioning a deal early next year that would include a wall, protection for Dreamers, work permits for their parents, a shift to merit-based immigration with tougher work site enforcement, and ultimately, legal status for some undocumented immigrants.

The idea would prevent Dreamers from sponsoring the parents who brought them illegally for citizenship, limiting what Mr. Trump refers to as “chain migration.”

“He wants to make a deal,” said Mr. Graham.
Ah, the artful deal maker.
Yet publicly, Mr. Trump has only employed the absolutist language that defined his campaign and has dominated his presidency.
If you're gonna be the boss, you gotta act like a boss.
“We’re so politically correct,” he complained to reporters in the cabinet room, “that we’re afraid to do anything.”
I'm not sure when the term "politically correct" came to mean something that's incorrect. But I know a lot of people are tired of not being able to be publicly racist. Obviously, The Most Notable Loser is one of them.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

I lost track

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Deconstructing America - part whatever

The US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump's travel ban on six mainly Muslim countries can go into full effect, pending legal challenges.

The decision is a boost for Mr Trump's policy against travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

The ruling covers the third version of the directive that the president has issued since taking office.

Seven of the nine justices lifted injunctions on Monday imposed by lower courts against the policy.

  BBC
Even Kagan voted to allow it. Only Ginsberg and Sotomayor voted to keep the ban blocked.
Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, California, and Richmond, Virginia, will hear arguments this week on whether the latest iteration of the policy is lawful.

[...]

The case will eventually end up back in the Supreme Court.

[...]

David Levine, a University of California Hastings law school professor, told the Associated Press news agency: "It suggests that from their understanding, the government is more likely to prevail on the merits than we might have thought."

[...]

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the ruling "a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people".
Jeff Sessions is full of shit.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Chad fallout

President Donald Trump’s decision to place Chad on his revised travel ban shocked experts and former U.S. officials who warned it could have major consequences for the fight against terrorism in Africa.

  Newsweek
And?
Chad warned at the time the order could affect its security commitments - which include its involvement in the U.S.-backed fight against Boko Haram.

[...]

Chad has withdrawn hundreds of troops from neighbouring Niger, where they were helping local forces fight Boko Haram Islamist militants, humanitarian sources and officials said.

[...]

The pull-out over the past two weeks could weaken a region-wide struggle against the militants who have killed tens of thousands of people, forced many more to flee and triggered a humanitarian crisis.

  Reuters
Niger - also where four Green Berets were recently killed in an ambush.

Well, done Most Notable Loser. Well done.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Viscious and Vindictive

The Trump administration has unveiled new travel restrictions on certain foreigners from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen as a replacement to a central portion of its controversial travel ban signed earlier this year.

[...]

In a statement Sunday night, the White House called the new restrictions a "critical step toward establishing an immigration system that protects Americans' safety and security in an era of dangerous terrorism and transnational crime."

[...]

The new list of countries notably includes several non-Muslim majority nations, including North Korea and Venezuela. In most instances, travel will be broadly suspended, while in other cases, travelers will have to undergo enhanced screening and vetting requirements.

[...]

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in a statement that with the new restrictions, "the President is carrying out his duty to protect the American people."

  CNN
No he's not. He's just being vindictive and mean. North Koreans don't come here anyway.
The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the legality of the travel ban next month.
Never in modern times has there been an occupant of the Oval Office who seemed to reject so thoroughly the nostrum that a president’s duty is to bring the country together.

[...]

Over the course of just 17 hours this weekend, President Trump assailed John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Stephen Curry, the National Football League, Roger Goodell, Iran and Kim Jong-un — the “Little Rocket Man.” And that was on his day off.

[...]

[A]ny notion that Mr. Trump may soften his edge, even under the discipline of a new chief of staff, seemed fanciful. While he has restrained himself for brief stretches, his penchant for punching eventually reasserts itself.

[...]

Relentlessly pugnacious, energized by a fight, unwilling to let any slight go unanswered, Mr. Trump has made himself America’s apostle of anger, its deacon of divisiveness.

[...]

“The Trump credo seems to be so many people to attack, so little time,” said Peter Wehner, a former strategic adviser to President George W. Bush.

[...]

Intentional or not, many of his most divisive comments charge directly into one of the most delicate issues in American life, race, whether it be his attacks on illegal immigrants, his “both sides” equivocation after the racial violence in Charlottesville or now his blasts at African-American football and basketball stars like Mr. Curry, the Golden State Warriors player who said he did not want to visit the White House for a traditional champions ceremony.

[...]

“We’ve never had a president who so relishes producing animosity and hate among Americans, and who does it so consistently, so gleefully and so intentionally,” [Wehner] said. And when there are no obvious targets, he added, Mr. Trump goes in search of them. “He seems to have a psychological need to keep everyone around him on edge and at each other’s throats.”

[...]

H. W. Brands, a biographer of Reagan and other presidents at the University of Texas at Austin, said other presidents were tactically divisive.

[...]

“Trump’s divisiveness looks different,” Mr. Brands said. “It appears more impulsive and more a matter of simply stirring the pot. It makes sense from the perspective of one who has long sought to attract media attention. There doesn’t seem to be any larger purpose. I really can’t see what he hopes to win by taking on the N.F.L.”

  NYT

UPDATE:

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Trump in Desperate Need of Good Press

At the urging of President Donald Trump, U.S. officials have reversed course and decided to allow into the United States a group of Afghan girls hoping to participate in an international robotics competition next week, senior administration officials told POLITICO on Wednesday.

  Politico
Seems fair since it was Trump's "urging" that made them deny them entry in the first place.
The decision followed a furious public backlash to the news that the six teens had been denied U.S. visas. That criticism swelled as details emerged about the girls’ struggle to build their robot and get visas.
Unless Fox News or CNN reported it, he probably didn't even know. They must be casting about in a fury to find good press for the tRump. And what fortunate timing for him to go to Paris, at the invitation of Macron, to celebrate Bastille Day with US armed forces. Hope he doesn't blow it.

Hey, I have an idea! He could let Macron talk him into getting back on board the Paris Climate Agreement. That would get him some good press.
“The State Department worked incredibly well with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that this case was reviewed and handled appropriately,” Dina Powell, Trump's deputy national security adviser for strategy, said in a statement. “We could not be prouder of this delegation of young women who are also scientists — they represent the best of the Afghan people and embody the promise that their aspirations can be fulfilled. They are future leaders of Afghanistan and strong ambassadors for their country.”
So why were the banned in the first place?

And now do the Gambian kids get to come?*
In this case, it was determined there was a significant public benefit to letting the girls in, the officials said.
And by significant public benefit, they mean significant presidential benefit.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

*Looks like they already got permission.
Fatoumata Ceesay, one of the engineering students, told Al Jazeera that although she and her peers weren’t told the reason behind the reversal of the decision, the second interview differed a lot from the first one.

"It was very nice and sensible compared with the last one," 17-year-old Ceesay said. “The questions were related to the robotics. We had an interesting conversation and they were friendly."

[...]

"The [first interview] we weren’t even allowed to submit the vital documentation," Darboe said. "The kids were asked one or two questions each. It was not detailed enough to give a definitive conclusion."

  alJazeera
Let's think of some of the questions asked on the first interview.

 First, let's have a look at the kids.

Saturday, July 1, 2017

Unconscionable

The all-girl team representing Afghanistan [in the international robotics competition happening in Washington DC] hails from Herat, a city of half a million people in the western part of the country. To interview for their visas, the girls risked a 500 mile trek cross-country to the American embassy in Kabul – the site of several recent suicide attacks and one deadly truck bomb in early June that killed at least 90 people. Despite the recent violence, the teenagers braved the trip to the country's capital not once, but twice, hoping a second round of interviews might help secure their 7-day visas after the team was rejected on its first try. But no luck.

[...]

Other teams from Iraq, Iran and Sudan were all able to secure their travel visas for the competition – and roughly 95% of FIRST global teams will be able to attend. Only team Afghanistan and team Gambia have been denied visas so far.

[...]

The six haven't had much time to put this contraption together: their raw materials were held up in customs for months this spring, amid fears over ISIS' use of robots on the battlefield. But instead of giving up, the girls took matters into their own hands, and designed their own homemade motorized robotic machines while they waited for customs to clear their parts.

  Forbes
The robot gets to come.




...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE: 7/4...

Gambian teenagers have also been denied visas for the robotics event.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Supreme Court Pre-Decision on Muslim Ban

The Supreme Court of the United States says it will allow a partial enforcement of President Donald Trump's ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees until it reviews it in October.

[...]

Trump's executive order suspends new visas being issued to people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for at least 90 days. It also partly allows a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US to go into effect.

Both bans are now due to partly go into effect in 72 hours.

[...]

Specifically, the court said the executive order would be enforced on foreign nationals who did not have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship" with a US person or organisation.

In effect, that means that individuals from the designated countries who have never been to the US before, or lacked a relationship with an American or American organisation could still have their visa denied during the three-month period.

But what a "bona fide relationship" exactly constitutes is a matter of dispute.

  alJazeera
Not very helpful ruling, then, is it?
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have connection to the US and those who do not will prove "unworkable".
I think Clarence got this one right.

And, by the way, how can the Supreme Court rule on something before it has reviewed it?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.