White House expands travel ban, restricting visitors from eight countries

The Trump administration announced new restrictions Sunday on visitors from eight countries — an expansion of the pre-existing travel ban that has spurred fierce legal debates over security, immigration and discrimination.
In announcing the new rules, officials said they are meant to be both tough and targeted. The move comes on the day the key portion of President Trump’s travel ban, one which bars the issuance of visas to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries, was due to expire.
“As president, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people,” Trump wrote in a proclamation announcing the changes for visitors from specific nations. On Twitter, he added: “Making America Safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet.” White House expands travel ban, restricting visitors from eight countries
The new travel ban represents the third version offered by the Trump administration.

Three new nations were added to the list of countries whose citizens will face the restrictions: Chad, North Korea and Venezuela — although the restrictions on Venezuela are narrowly crafted, targeting that country’s leadership and their family members.
One country, Sudan, fell off the travel ban list issued at the beginning of the year. Senior administration officials said a review of Sudan’s cooperation with the U.S. government on national security and information-sharing showed it was appropriate to remove them from the list.
The new restrictions will be phased in over time, officials said, and the restrictions will not affect anyone who already holds a U.S. visa. For those visitors affected by the changed restrictions, the new rules will go into effect Oct. 18, according to the proclamation.
Critics of the administration have argued that the travel bans are an unconstitutional attempt to deliver on Trump’s campaign promise of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Administration officials deny any of the bans were aimed at Muslims, saying they are based on security concerns about visitors from countries with failing or weak government “ The restrictions either previously or now were never, ever  based on race, religion or creed,’’ one senior administration official said. “Those governments are simply not compliant with our basic security requirements.”
The original version, signed as an executive order in January, blocked citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries — Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria .

  This decision by Trump come to no surprise because of the direction his administration is going were they're addressing the none documented citizens in the united states. Trump is saying that it has nothing to do with race but the treat at witch there country poses to the united states .That could be questioned on the different things that Trump has said over the past couple of month in office .This could be a personal agenda that he is renewing .The signing of this bill should be unconstitutional because of the restrictions it has on some people because of there religious beliefs and where there from.

Police shooting an Oklahoma deaf man

   On a Tuesday evening an incident occurred where officers fatally shot a deaf man as the neighbors shorted that he couldn't hear their commands telling him to drop the pipe he was holding. The pipe Magdiel Sanchez, 35, was carrying had been fashioned into a fairly large weapon, Oklahoma Police Chief Billy Citty said at the press conference. It was tied around how wrist disabling Sanchez from letting it go out of his hands when in use. Officers were acting off of information given to officers about a green truck allegedly involved in an accident, after Lt. Matthew Lindsey arrived at the location and found a green truck matching the description. Sanchez advanced to the front yard holding what Matthews said was the pipe. Matthew called for backup which then another officer, Sgt. Christopher Barnes, arrived both proceeded to shouting to Sanchez to drop the weapon, even though the neighbors were yelling at them telling the officers that Sanchez was deaf. But unable to hear the neighbors the officers continued to shout. As Sanchez continued towards the officers Matthew shit his stun gun first and Barnes followed shooting Sanchez with his gun. After Sanchez received medical attention he was pronounced dead. Sanchez's neighbors were devastated saying that, “Sanchez didn't deserve to die like that” and that Sanchez would “always” carry around that pipe mainly to shoo away the stray dogs that roamed the neighborhood.

  This action by the police officers were both brash and precautionary. Whole it can be said that what the officers did was wrong it can also be said that it was purely based on protocol and just not being able to understand Sanchez's sign language. This event is happening at a time where police officers in general do not have the best look with civilians, minorities in particular. By doing this the Oklahoma Police Dept may begin to face massive criticism which may result in a change of how the police do things. In a situation such as this what are the officers supposed to do if they can't understand the suspect while they are in possession of a weapon and not following the orders which are being given to them? Things like this are tragic but are also unavoidable since you can't entirely be prepared for every situation. But even if situations like this were to happen I do believe that the officers should at least be held accountable for his actions, be it as it may even when he has limited options to choose from while in the moment.

The Clock Is Ticking on DACA...

Link

Donald Trump's White House announced last Tuesday it would put an end to former President Barack Obama's executive order, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA is a protection that allowed children of undocumented immigrants to get a temporary reprieve from deportation and to receive permission to work, study and obtain driver's licenses. DACA recipients have to prove they arrived in the US before the age of 16, have a clean criminal record and must be currently in school, working or in the military. DACA recipients have to pay close to $500 in fees and must renew their permits every two years. There has been a surging rush to renew permits before the October 5th deadline. This fast approaching deadline along with the recent hurricanes in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida have put many in a bind. Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, a coalition of organizations providing legal services to immigrants says that they are receiving over 5,000 applications per day. Lawyers, advocates and volunteers are helping as many as possible with applications where one mistake could cause an application to be rejected.  Many are urging the White House to extend the Oct. 5 deadline to give applicants a chance to raise money to pay the renewal fees (almost $76 million if all those who are eligible apply). Advocates also point out that the natural disasters of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma could cause many to miss the deadline. If the deadline stays intact and/or if Congress does not act, thousands will lose their status as documented (legal) immigrants as well as legal jobs, health insurance, and other benefits. Congress is being pushed to create a more comprehensive immigration policy but if some sort of compromise is not met soon, DACA recipients will lose their status as soon as March 2018.

This decision by Trump was completely unnecessary. While our current immigration policy is convoluted and is in dire need of change, this move came at a time when much of the administration is under fire for "Russia-gate", it's ties to white supremacists, and it's inability to get meaningful legislation passed.  By ending former President Obama's executive action, thousands of productive, law abiding US residents will face deportation. It is no fault of these DACA recipients that their parents are undocumented and/or they were not born here. Many came at a young age and have known no other country except the US. Where are all these people supposed to get deported to? Many people think that this only impacts people that are Hispanic but this affects many people from the Caribbean, Europe and Asia. The last time major immigration policy was passed was in 1986, so it is unlikely that our current Congress will be able to hash out an immigration plan before the deadline. This is an interesting situation in that when former President Obama created DACA, he realized that it was a "band aid" to the immigration issue and that he, as president, shouldn't have to create policy (as that is the job of Congress).  In this I agree, but as Congress is just coming back into session and the fact that there are other more pressing issues facing this country, I do not believe that this administration's intent was benevolent. The current president argues that DACA was an overstep of executive power and that it should be up to Congress to make immigration policy. So what do you think? Should the executive branch be able to create legislation when Congress does not? What should happen if Congress cannot come up with legislation? How do you feel about DACA?