Passengers use the Automated Passport Control Kiosks set up for international travelers arriving at Miami International Airport on March 4, 2015 in Miami, Florida.(Photo: Joe Raedle, Getty Images) <\/p>\n
WASHINGTON Ithas beenmore than two months since President Trump tried to temporarily suspend travel from severalmajority Muslim countries to give his administration time to develop\"extreme vetting\" procedures against terror-prone countries. Yetthe Department of Homeland Security has not made any progress towardthat goal,the agencysaid Tuesday. <\/p>\n
DHS spokesman David Lapan blamed federal court rulings that have blocked the travel ban from taking effect, saying they have \"stopped our ability to move forward on those procedures.\" <\/p>\n
That argument was disputed by former DHS officials who served under Democratic and Republican presidents. They said the courts have only restricted portions of Trump's original and revised executive orders and that the department has had no problem updating other security procedures. <\/p>\n
\"I just dont think thats credible,\" said Amy Pope, President Barack Obama's deputy Homeland Security adviser, who coordinated vetting procedures andis now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. \"Its well within their responsibility and their purview to be doing ongoing analysis of vetting standards based on evolving intelligence, and theres no way to read the court orders as ending that.\" <\/p>\n
James Norton, a deputy assistant secretary at Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, also said the department can still implement much of what Trump intended in his executive orders despite the court rulings. <\/p>\n
\"Obviously they're not going to defy the court order,\" said Norton, now the president of Play-Action Strategies, a security consulting firm in Washington, D.C. \"But at the same time, I don't think they're sitting around waiting for the court.\" <\/p>\n
Trump signed two executive orders both blocked by courts that tried to halt all travel from the targeted Muslim countries for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. The first order, signed Jan. 27, banned travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The second order, signed March 6, removed Iraq from the list. <\/p>\n
As the Department of Justice appeals those rulings, refugees continue entering the United States. Since Trump was inaugurated,the U.S. has taken in 9,268refugees, including 3,138from the six targeted countries. That compares to 13,327 refugees admitted during the same period in 2016, including 3,806 fromthecountries covered by the travel ban. <\/p>\n
Read more: <\/p>\n
Hawaii judge extends halt on Trump travel ban <\/p>\n
Trump's travel ban could cost $18B in U.S. tourism, analysis shows <\/p>\n
Toronto schools ban students trips to the USA over Trump concerns <\/p>\n
Lapan said the the government has been unable to move forward because the same rulings that blocked the travel ban also blocked their internal review of vetting procedures. A federal judge in Hawaii, who issued a nationwide ban on Trump's order, blocked a section that orders DHS, the Department of State, the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to review and update vetting procedures against people intent on committing acts of terrorism in the U.S. <\/p>\n
He saidthose orders also prevent his agency from gatheringinformation needed to process immigration and refugee applications from the affected countries. He stressed that the department has already changed the way it analyzes all visa requests, a heightened level of scrutiny they want to extend to people targeted by Trump's travel ban. <\/p>\n
\"We're looking at the information we have received about individuals who want to come here with an eye toward why should this person be allowed to travel to the United States, rather than what can we do to help them get here,'' Lapan said. <\/p>\n
The court rulings, however, have not blocked a section of Trump's executive order that allows government agenciesto design enhanced vetting standards for all incoming foreigners. Itdirects DHS, the Department of Justice, the Director of National Intelligence and State Department to implement a program that improves screening of all inbound passengers, regardless of country of origin. <\/p>\n
The rulingsalso left untoucheda presidential memorandumTrump issued March 6 the same day he signed hisrevised ban that orders the same departments to implement \"enhanced vetting protocols\"to stop foreigners entering the country \"who may aid, support, or commit violent, criminal, or terrorist acts.\" <\/p>\n
That's why Pope doesn't understand how DHS could argue that theagency's hands are completely tied. \"It just doesnt make much sense to me,\" she said. <\/p>\n
Justin Cox, aNational Immigration Law Center attorney whoargued against the ban in court, agreed with Pope thatthe judges' orders don't prevent the administration from developing vetting procedures. \"It is in their litigation interest to hyperbolize the degree to which their hands are tied by the courts,\" he said. \"But in reality, their hands are not that tied.\" <\/p>\n
Read or Share this story: http:\/\/usat.ly\/2nV5az4<\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Here is the original post: <\/p>\n DHS: No progress on 'extreme vetting' behind purpose of temporary travel ban - USA TODAY<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Passengers use the Automated Passport Control Kiosks set up for international travelers arriving at Miami International Airport on March 4, 2015 in Miami, Florida.(Photo: Joe Raedle, Getty Images) WASHINGTON Ithas beenmore than two months since President Trump tried to temporarily suspend travel from severalmajority Muslim countries to give his administration time to develop\"extreme vetting\" procedures against terror-prone countries. Yetthe Department of Homeland Security has not made any progress towardthat goal,the agencysaid Tuesday. DHS spokesman David Lapan blamed federal court rulings that have blocked the travel ban from taking effect, saying they have \"stopped our ability to move forward on those procedures.\" That argument was disputed by former DHS officials who served under Democratic and Republican presidents. Continue reading