Donald Trump

Trump Admin Revoked 100,000+ Visas, Govt Attorney Tells Judge—State Dept Says It's Under 60,000

During the 90-day ban, the government is considering whether to extend it in duration and scope.

|

State Dept.

An attorney with the Department of Justice's Office of Immigration Litigation, Erez Reuveni, told a federal judge in Virginia today that the government had revoked more than 100,000 visas, yielding gasps from courtroom observers, the Washington Post reports. Reuveni said he didn't know how many visa-holders the government sent back to the seven "countries of concern" from which President Trump's executive order of last Friday temporarily banned virtually all travel, but claimed all green card holders detained at airports around the country over the weekend had been allowed into the U.S.

Meanwhile, the State Department disputed those numbers. It said fewer than 60,000 visas were revoked per the executive order, the Associate Press reports. In 2016, the department issued 31,754 immigrant visas for nationals of the seven affected countries—Libya, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. In 2015, it issued 72,162 nonimmigrant visas—numbers from 2016 are not available. A State Department spokesperson told the AP the attorney's confusion came from including diplomatic visas (diplomatic travel has not been banned, so it's unclear why the DOJ would include them, except for the entire process being dominated by chaos and a lack of clarity) and visas that had already expired prior to the order taking effect.

Nevertheless, both numbers are far higher than the 109 number cited by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, referring to those people immediately affected by the order because they were in transit when it was issued. "Three hundred and twenty-five thousand people flew into this country from airports and 109 people were affected and slowed down in their travel," Spicer said. "I understand that is an inconvenience but at the end of the day that is a small price to pay as opposed to somebody losing their life because a terrorist attack was admitted."

Two Yemeni brothers who said the government seized their visas, revoked their permanent resident status and sent them on a return flight to Ethiopia filed this particular suit where the DOJ attorney told the court more than 100,000 visas were revoked. The judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, said she'd never seen "so much public outpouring" as I've been in this case" before, according to the Post. "This order touched something in the United States that I've never seen before. It's amazing."

The government, the Post reports, is attempting a "case by case reprieve" and has offered the brothers new visas in exchange for dropping their lawsuit. Customs and Border Patrol says it has granted 87 visa holder waivers and "recommended denial of boarding" to 1,136.

The State Department, meanwhile, is encouraging nationals of the seven banned countries who have begun the process of applying for an immigrant visa to continue to do so. It recommends applicants "continue to pay fees, complete your Form DS-260 immigrant visa application, and submit your financial and civil supporting documents," although all interview appointments in February for applicants from the banned countries have been canceled. Nonimmigrant visa applicants, on the other hand, are recommended not to pay any visas at this time.

The whole fiasco surrounding the executive order, and especially the casual cruelty and heavy-handedness toward lawful permanent residents and legal visa-holders, reveals that, indeed, for some critics of immigration, the distinction between legal and illegal immigrant is not particularly important. The government's approach to people holding legal documents permitting them to travel to or even live in the United States undermines the legal immigration system and discourages legal immigration more than any kind of relief for long-term illegal immigrants who otherwise abide the law could have. Moreover, it further engrains the idea that the government need not limit its actions to what is necessary or proper, nor even to pay lip service to the constitutional principle, as previous Republican presidents have often at least tried to do. Whatever else may be disrupted in the new administration, the decades long project of the government undermining basic principles of the rule of law will continue unabated, with a new set of cheerleaders.

NEXT: Trump, Terrorism, and Freedom: New at Reason

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “This order touched something in the United States that I’ve never seen before. It’s amazing.”

    You can say that again.

    1. It sure touched something at this magazine, although this article is at least fact filled.

      1. Well, it’s filled with numbers, maybe these numbers are accurate and maybe they aren’t.

        1. Somewhere between 106 and 100,000 and beyond. So, not fewer than 106 and not more than the total population of the planet.

          1. Wash your hands thoroughly after handling those numbers, we can readily guess where the numbers came from.

    2. This order touched something in the United States

      Grabbed it by the pussy?

  2. The government, the Post reports, is an attempting a “case by case reprieve” and has offered the brothers news visas in exchange for dropping their lawsuit.

    Hear that, terrorists? Sue Trump and he’ll let you in!

    1. Trump is tough. He said he is going to be tough. Believe him, OK?

      He is also going to be the greatest jobs president god has ever seen.

      And there’s always the winning.
      And this dope was still a thousand times better choice than that cunt.

      We are soooooo fucked.

      1. So tired of winning already.

    2. No, he’s giving them *news* visas – press credentials – then he’s going to suppress them when he launches his attack on the media!

  3. I feel safe now.

    I also feel safe when we bomb a guy in hut with a machete and an AK

  4. Ok, folks, it’s time! Get those hankies in the air! Now screech after me – “FAAAAAASCIST!!”

  5. We need to kick out two immigrants for every one admitted.

    1. So admit to kicking out one, then slyly remove two more?

    2. Imagine the consequences to immigration if the Supreme Court ever overturned Roe by deciding life began at conception. You could fuck on vacation in America and boom you’ve got a legal right to stay in the visa vi your child.

  6. It recommends applicants “continue to pay fees, complete your Form DS-260 immigrant visa application, and submit your financial and civil supporting documents,” although…

    …they mostly stress the continue paying fees part.

    1. Don’t try to claim that that is unique to the government only in this case ….. 😉

    2. I wonder if CBP is going make the now re-eligible premanent residents pay the application fees for getting Global Entry back after revoking it for green card holders from those 7 countries (and apparently some dual citizens). I’m leaning towards yes..

  7. Dalmia Watch:

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia 4h4 hours ago
    More
    No matter what the moral rot on the left, the right always manages to outdo it! Sad!

    She says as leftists viciously and openly assault political opponents and riot without one single ounce of condemnation from leftist leadership and media personalities.

    1. Seriously, she is a terrible human being. How the hell can Reason call themselves even nominally libertarian while employing that disgrace.

      No ‘to be sures’- fire that joke.

      “Woke minds and intersectional solidarity”

    2. It’s pretty clear that she’s one of them, but as a condition of working for Reason, is required to reluctantly do the pox-on-both-houses dance. The jacket might try to suffocate her otherwise.

      1. In her defense, likely somewhere someone on the right is punching someone on the left before that person can verbalize his ideological argument.

    3. Prediction: more rants against Shikha during H&R pm.

      1. You’re god damn right. I don’t care who is tired of hearing it. Shikha is a waste of the caloric energy necessary to keep her alive.

        1. I’m going to steal that line, FYI

          1. It can’t be stated enough.

        2. Just go with oxygen thief.

          1. So who owns the oxygen?

            1. Shares are divided equally among that portion of humanity which is not Shikha Dalmia

    4. Good heavens.

      She says as leftists viciously and openly assault political opponents and riot without one single ounce of condemnation from leftist leadership and media personalities.

      You mean open and vociferous support out of one side of their mouth while attemping to pin it on Breitbart vast right-wing conspiracy kulak wreckers out of the other.

      When Conquest wrote his second law of politics he was clearly unaware of the sheer power of cocktail parties over moral principle.

      1. I saw that. Make no mistake, that will be the leftist talking point believed by millions of the useful sort of idiots that the real communists would be lining up against the wall once they have no more use of them, like they always do in leftist insurrections.

    5. You sound like you want to criminalize “dissent”. Why do you hate “protestors” and “demonstrators”, to use some words I see members of the Worst Profession using to describe them?

      1. I’m a bigot like that.

  8. …for some critics of immigration, the distinction between legal and illegal immigrant is not particularly important.

    It seems more an attempt to alter what it takes to be a legal immigrant.

  9. “for some critics of immigration, the distinction between legal and illegal immigrant is not particularly important.”

    Absolutely true. But, it also goes the other way, especially for the open border crowd.

    ‘Moreover, it further engrains the idea that the government need not limit its actions to what is necessary or proper, nor even to pay lip service to the constitutional principle, as previous Republican presidents have often at least tried to do”

    Last I checked there is no constitutional right for non-resident aliens to enter this country. Are you suggesting that some constitutional right to enter the US extends to the world? Try again

    1. The only constitutional principles I know of involve the due-process rights of green-card holders – a brief trip abroad doesn’t deprive them of all due process rights – and the authority of Congress to pass laws about who gets admitted and who doesn’t (though both Reason and Andrew McCarthy seems to question this authority on different grounds – Reason based on the supposed constitutional rights of potential immigrants and McCarthy on the supposed Presidential power to make immigration rules independent of Congress).

      1. No, I agree. Maybe I misunderstood what was stated in the article. I thought they were also discussing those that just applied for a visa. My mistake if I misunderstood

        1. Frankly, I have no idea what constitutional principle they were referring to.

          1. I think there is a constitutional right of legal permanent residents or visa holder to return, if that was being referred to. I don’t recall the case that referenced this, though.

            I thought they were referring to those who just applied for a visa.

    2. “for some critics of immigration, the distinction between legal and illegal immigrant is not particularly important.”

      This is particularly rich coming from Reason, which routines conflates legal and illegal immigration.

  10. I guess all those people are going to have to use their MasterCards instead. /bad joke

  11. Setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of congress. So long as those visa holders and green card holders complied with the rules set by congress, they have due process rights–and the Trump administration is violating them, which is unconstitutional and wrong.

    The part of the order that suspends asylum seekers from those countries that represent a security threat to the United States should be perfectly constitutional.

    But it should be clear to everybody that we’re talking about due process rights, maybe some ex post facto, etc.

    This ain’t about keeping Muslims out of the country.

  12. the casual cruelty

    drink!

  13. Ed Krayewski, a good reason to read Reason.

  14. My gasp was from the fact these countries have 60-100K visa….holy shit that is a lot……why so many? It wasn’t the part of them being revoked but the sheer number of how many we hand out O.o

    1. I’m betting a huge % are from Iran rather than the rest. Especially student visas.

  15. “I understand that is an inconvenience but at the end of the day that is a small price to pay as opposed to somebody losing their life because a terrorist attack was admitted.”

    Well I can’t argue with that. But it would be interesting to read the interviews done with the guy whose life was spared by the terrorist attack that wasn’t admitted. You’d think that somebody coming this close to being killed by a terrorist attack and then finding out at the last moment that a quick government intervention had foiled the murderous plot would make a human interest story no media outlet could resist telling. And yet for some strange reason I can’t find a single media outlet that’s even bothering to report this dude’s name! It’s almost as if this guy was an entirely fictitious or hypothetical person. Somebody’s covering something up here and I sure would like for somebody to get to the bottom of it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.