Friday, March 24, 2017

Trump Initiates New Extreme Vetting for Millions of Tourists

 The Trump administration is making it tougher for millions of visitors to enter the United States by demanding new security checks before giving visas to tourists, business travelers and relatives of American residents, reports The New York Times.

Diplomatic cables sent last week from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to all American embassies instructed consular officials to broadly increase scrutiny.

According to the Gray Lady, the new rules generally do not apply to 38 countries — including most of Europe and longstanding allies like Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea — whose citizens can be speedily admitted into the United States under the visa waiver program.

Consular officials and immigration advocates said the administration’s moves will increase the likelihood of denial for those seeking to come to America, and will further slow down a bureaucratic approval process that can already take months or even years for those flagged for extra investigation, according to the paper.

“Consular officers should not hesitate to refuse any case presenting security concerns,” Tillerson wrote in the cables, titled “Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Visa Applications.”

“All visa decisions are national security decisions,” the secretary of state added.

It does not surprise me one bit that Trump has installed an authoritarian smelfungus at state. No doubt libertarian Trump fanboys will cheer. Hey, a tourist could end up at an emeregncy room paid for by American taxpayers.



  1. London, Paris, Brussels Airport, Nice, Munich, Orlando... See the website religion of peace for a list of attacks carried out almost daily.

  2. Very good post, good analysis, but the snipe at the end is again misplaced. I take from your comments that you will be personally funding all tourists who end up in American hospitals where taxpayers would be on the hook for the bill.

    In a PPS, every road would have bonding and exclusion policies. Why is it when the government takes the road or the land, then builds the road, the only "libertarian" position is that anyone can get on the road?

    Suppose the government takes my home, but does let me continue to use it. By the same logic, the home would be "abandoned property" (per Walter Block), and the only libertarian position is that it would be unethical for me, the former owner, to prevent anyone and everyone from coming into my house and pretty much doing whatever they want.

    I am open to changing my mind on this issue. But I struggle to see past these sorts of Hoppean hypos to allow for "open" borders.

    Disclaimer: I never supported Trump and don't accept the 'libertarian fanboy strawman'. I do otherwise enjoy and value your blog and analysis; but I differ strongly on this issue.

  3. It kills me that the only person that acknowledges the Elephant in the room, (foreign blowback,) is an orange man with MORE than a few Cheetos missing from his bag.

    How sad is that?