Trump Withdraws Appeal Of Travel Ban Suspension, To Unveil New Immigration Order Next Week

Tyler Durden's picture

During Trump's press conference, the president announced, among numerous other things, that he will issue a new executive action on immigration "next week sometime" which will be "tailored to the decision" issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and will rescind the initial travel ban which has been challenged in legal battles across the nation.

"We are issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country," Trump said.

At the same time, the DOJ asked the San Francisco-based Appeals Court not to review a decision by a three-judge panel to keep the immigration policy on hold while it moves through the legal system, citing plans to soon replace the order with a “superseding” one.

"Rather than continuing this litigation, the President intends in the near future to rescind the Order and replace it with a new, substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns," the DOJ said in a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

As The Hill adds, a  judge on the appeals court had requested that the entire court vote on whether to review the case after a three-judge panel refused to lift a temporary restraining against the travel ban, which was issued while a lower court debates the merits of the policy. But with a new immigration order on the horizon, the administration appears to be backing down on appealing the decision, which would have taken weeks or months to resolve.

"In so doing, the President will clear the way for immediately protecting the country rather than pursuing further, potentially time-consuming litigation," the DOJ said in its filing.

Trump said Thursday that they are tweaking the policy so that it can stand up court, using the appeals court ruling as a playbook. The new ban could clarify that the travel restrictions do not apply to legal permanent residents and other certain visa holders.

“We can tailor the order and get just about everything… We have some of the best lawyers in the country,” Trump said. “It’s being tailored to the decision we got down from court.”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
roadhazard's picture

I knew he'd figure it out.

Belrev's picture

Russian hackers do it again and now make a prank phone call to senator Mccain where he spills his beans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqrw2vIvBv0

Fathead Slim's picture
Fathead Slim (not verified) xythras Feb 16, 2017 5:17 PM

I'd say that he has a good legal mind. He was a prosecutor. The better legal minds usually work the other side of the street.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Loved that President Trump mentioned John Podesta in his address!  He said that if he had been in Hillary's place when Podesta said the nasty things he said (I think he was referring to the "stench" email), he would have fired him immediately.  Which also brings attention to Hillary's cognitive functioning.

But, really, LOVED that President Trump mentioned John Podesta!  I wonder if he's making travel plans?

HRClinton's picture

Shameless prank. And how dare the commenters call the good Senator "McInsane", or question his psychiatric condition?  How dare they!

Croesus's picture

That phony "war hero" should have been tarred and feathered years ago, after the Keating 5 shit.

Laddie's picture

Well he MUST do SOMETHING to stop the invasion because it is THE DESTRUCTION of our nation.

Little angel Serenity Reedy raped and murdered by illegal Mexican invader SHE WAS A BABY! A Washington state White woman had this BEAST as her boyfriend!!!

KEPR News story from Richland WA Video

Sam was fired from National Review by Bill Buckley for telling the truth about a certain group:

Mass Immigration Eats Through The Melting Pot
March 04, 2004 Sam Francis

It's also interesting he acknowledges the Jewish connection, since it's becoming increasingly obvious. Mr. Karnow, as he makes sure to tell us at the end of his column, is Jewish himself, and so, he also made sure to tell us, was Kallen. And one reason they like immigration so much is precisely because of what it does to the "Anglo Protestant core" of American civilization.

A couple of years ago, the Forward, the principal Jewish newspaper in the country, reported a remark made by Leonard Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, in explaining why his organization was promoting the resettlement of Somali refugees in the United States: "The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are." Mr. Glickman is not alone.

Perhaps for much the same reason, Jewish John Podhoretz, David Brooks and several others don't much like the very concept of an "Anglo Protestant core."

Unlike most conservatives, almost all of them rushed to endorse President Bush's amnesty proposals as soon as he announced them, and some like Mr. Brooks have rushed to denounce the Huntington article.

Jewish Americans played a crucial role in pushing for mass immigration throughout the last century, and there's no more reason that should be a secret than there is that Roman Catholics have pushed hard for banning abortion.

Unfortunately, there is a secret about it—because people who mention it tend to get smashed as "anti-Semites."

TwelveOhOne's picture

Voltaire said "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

What other historical event has legislation against discussing it?

Jon_Locke's picture

Instead of restricting the immigration ban to a few countries, he has included all countries for the sake of equality. Would pay money to see Libs respond to that. 

centerline's picture

Smart move. 

Let the next round of neoliberal tantrums begin!

eyeslevel's picture

When this one gets adjudicated let's see if his lawyers can keep it out of the 9th Circuit.

BigFatUglyBubble's picture

He should be using the bully pulpit to expose the central banking ponzi pyramid scheme.  This is all smoke screen so the bankers can continue to rob us.  The coming economic calamity is 100000x more a danger than "terrorists from Iran."

TheMeatTrapper's picture

Sound money will be useless when the country is a third world cesspool. First things first.

The_Dude's picture

Shut it down! Shut it down!

GunnerySgtHartman's picture

Rather than continuing this litigation, the President intends in the near future to rescind the Order and replace it with a new, substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns

Hilarious smackdown of the 9th Circuit Court panel by the DOJ.  Well done!

Bananamerican's picture

hey, it's a futile ad hominem slur! ...and NOTHING ELSE!

You must be a Liberal

Bill of Rights's picture

GOOD! Don't back down! and start pulling funding...

Ex-Oligarch's picture

Halt all immigration from everywhere. 
No religioud, racial, or other bias.  Stop everybody.
Problem solved.

edifice's picture

Fertility rate in the US is 1.88. Anything under 2.0 and you need immigration, or some way of making people breed. That is not to say that you can't be selective about WHERE immigrants are sourced from.

Davy Crockett's picture

I hate that tired bullshit.  It's OK if our population reduces.  Really, it's OK.  Hell, the liberals should love that.  Good for the environment, less CO2 for the pesky plants to breath, etc.

Automation makes it more difficult to find jobs for constantly increasing populations.  Why not allow the population to seek a lower level for awhile?  If you take care of your country and don't let it get fucked up, you can always open the immigration floodgates again in 50 years, if you want to.  Perhaps you'll choose to open those floodgates to people who will gratefully adapt to your culture, instead of trying to destroy it.  We should probably try that once, and see how we like it.

This idea that a countries population needs to grow forever, is obviously a flawed idea.  Anybody who gives it any actual thought can imagine the time when such a policy must be abandoned.  Why wait until we're making Soylent Green and killing anybody over 21, before abandoning it?  It's a flawed idea and should be abandoned now.

centerline's picture

I agree.

Unfortunately the economic systems are all predicated on perpetual growth. 

We are going to find out what happens though.  The demographic wave is already upon us now.  And the irony in how this plays out from a socioeconomic standpoint is a declining birth rate combined with a rising death rate.

N2OJoe's picture

Not only that, but decades of economic depression and falling incomes tend to discourage responsible people from having children they can't provide for. If low birth rates are a problem, then prosperity is the solution.

Of course, the jungle monkeys and third worlders breed like cockroaches regardless of their ability to feed or cloth the precious little drains on society.

Croesus's picture

@ Davy Crockett:

I agree with you, but I notice one very unfortunate aspect of the birth rates:

The people who should be having kids, aren't. Instead, they're trying to get established, focusing on careers, etc. I can't even tell you how many decent women I know, that don't want to have kids at all, even though they would make excellent mothers.

The useless eaters of this country, are reproducing like flies.

stubb's picture

Exactly. There is a directly inverse relationship in most western countries between the birth rates of various groups vs the ability of those groups to contribute meaningfully to society. And the productive groups are forced to fund it all. 

SmokeyBlonde's picture

Idiocracy, like 1984, has morphed from fiction to a documentary.

TwelveOhOne's picture

I think it's an outgrowth of the "baby boomers".

Back in the 90s, I was told "if you want to be successful, cater to the baby-boomers: diapers yesterday; fast cars today; retirement homes tomorrow."

They were so right!

This aligns with what you're saying about the demographic wave being upon us: birth rates have been declining since the "baby boom" (and, those are starting to die off -- so, increase in deaths, decrease in births).

scoutshonor's picture

True that--all that overpriced shit at Bed Bath & Beyond ain't gonna buy itself.

stubb's picture

That's another factor in our current socio-economic death spiral. At the same time we've ensured that birth rates will be the highest in precisely those groups with the lowest potential to contribute to society, automation is steadily eliminating precisely those jobs that would have been their primary source of employment.

Things will limp along as they are for a while, and then get very ugly very quickly. Hope I die before TSHTF.

 

 

milo_hoffman's picture

With 94 million people not working, the US can afford a little low birth rates for a few years.

Bananamerican's picture

ALL animal populations wax and wane, keeping in balance with resources/predators etc...

amerika's population can rebound if amerika's Wall Street predator class ever becomes checked 

TwelveOhOne's picture

I like your analysis: starve the beast!  With less resources, it can't pay as many to sit around doing nothing (nod to Scott McCaughey).

Don't think we should implement the "predator" portion but in all likelihood that'll work itself out.  And, your final sentence includes a "but what if they can't?" ...

blueskyranch's picture

That's why there is Viagra for the WASP 65 year old males with several 25 year old girlfriends. Works every time. Firmly believe it.

roadhazard's picture

The girls still have to be on top.

stubb's picture

They can ride me like a wild horse. 

One Eyed Jack's picture

Perhaps the problem is not infertility but rather infanticide via abortion

A. Boaty's picture

The Judiciary as an equal branch of government? Who knew?

Mzhen's picture

Actually the judiciary is a lesser among equals.  Not exactly what you said.  And we still have this thing called separation of powers, which the federal district and 9th Circuit judges failed to understand.

A. Boaty's picture

The judiciary can declare laws unconstitutional. That makes them equal under the separation of powers.

gearbaby's picture

Hey, Trump .... I thought you declared that the case would be overturned ... HAHAHAHAHAHA ... You lost ... You're a loser .... AGAIN!!!

silverer's picture

It was overturned. Trump overturned it. Hahahahahahaha
Your post is a loser. Try again.

IronForge's picture

Now EVERYONE's going to be Vetted before they're let in.

silverer's picture

All 162 countries. Then there's that $150 entry fee kicker...

dlfield's picture

Hopefully it is far more widely comprehensive than that last one.