President Donald Trump on Thursday night (Nov 27 ) threatened to suspend immigration from what he called “Third World countries” in the wake of a Washington DC shooting of two National Guard soldiers by an Afghan who entered the US as a migrant. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is a 29-year-old who entered under a US resettlement programme following the chaotic 2021 US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. One of the two injured soldiers later died while the other is fighting for life. While it is not clear if Trump would impose a full immigration suspension, his announcement is similar to what he did in 2017. Soon after starting his first term, Trump issued a sweeping travel ban targeting largely Muslim-majority nations, causing significant disruption at airports, family separations, and legal battles. Here is what unfolded in 2017 and its aftermath. But first, let's look at his latest threat.<h2>Trump's latest 'reverse migration' threat: What did he say?</h2>On Truth Social, Trump wrote: “I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover.” Blaming the previous administration of Joe Biden, Trump added he would “terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions, including those signed by Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen,” and “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country.”He also said the US would end all federal benefits and subsidies to non-citizens, “denaturalise migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity,” and deport any foreign national deemed a public charge, a security risk, or “non-compatible with Western Civilisation.”“Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation,” he concluded, while also sharing an image of the chaotic evacuation of some Afghan civilians in 2021.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-demands-review-of-afghan-immigrants-after-dc-shooting-1764240926003/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-demands-review-of-afghan-immigrants-after-dc-shooting-1764240926003/embed</a><h2>Trump triggers memories, alarm among immigrant communities</h2>Trump's pronouncements are reviving a nightmare for migrant communities, refugee-rights groups and legal advocates. If a broad migration pause similar to 2017 is imposed, hundreds of thousands of lives will be disrupted. Years of resettlement efforts would be undone. Debates over immigration, security, and civil rights would be reignited on the streets, screens and courts of America.<h2>What happened in 2017? The Trump ‘Muslim travel ban’ and its immediate impact</h2>In January 2017, soon after assuming his first term in office, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, barring travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (note that Afghanistan was not included at the time). The order also paused the US Refugee Admissions Programme for four months, and indefinitely stopped Syrian refugee resettlement. Touted as a security measure, the ban’s abrupt rollout caused widespread confusion among government agencies, airlines, airports, passengers, visa-holders and visa-seekers.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/i-will-permanently-pause-migration-from-all-third-world-countries-donald-trump-1764305958909">I will PERMANENTLY PAUSE migration from all third world countries: Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;Hundreds of travellers were detained or denied boarding at American airports nationwide within hours of the executive order. Nearly 90,000 people were affected by visa revocations and restrictions, with airports becoming battlegrounds of arguments and protests. An estimated 60,000 visas were revoked. Many lawful permanent residents from the seven countries were initially barred from entering the US.<h2>Airport chaos and protests after ‘Muslim travel ban’</h2>The ban was seen as an Islamophobic action, with major airports including JFK, Dulles, O’Hare, LAX and San Francisco seeing large-scale disruptions. Even lawful visa holders were detained for hours, often without rightful access to lawyers, with critics calling it the ‘Muslim ban’.Lawyers and community groups mobilised to assist many stranded travellers, even as thousands of protesters gathered outside airports and government buildings. They demanded that stranded individuals be admitted. Even after lengthy vetting, many asylum-seekers, refugees, students and families were denied entry.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-the-animal-that-shot-will-pay-very-steep-price-trump-issues-warning-to-suspect-after-2-national-guard-shot-near-white-house-1764217175279">All immigration requests for Afghan nationals 'stopped indefinitely', says USCIS</a><h2>Trump's 'Muslim ban' faced legal battles and led to order revisions</h2>Legal challenges were filed soon in local and federal courts, which issued temporary restraining orders within days. This essentially blocked the enforcement of the initial order in many places. By March 2017, the administration was forced to rework the policy with a new executive order. Presidential Proclamation 9645 in September 2017 modified the list of affected countries, removing Sudan and later Chad. Later, North Korea and certain Venezuelan officials were added to the travel ban. In June 2018, the US Supreme Court upheld this final version in a 5–4 decision, bowing to presidential authority over matters of national security and immigration.<h2>Revocation of the Muslim ban in 2021</h2>After the chaos that continued for several years, Democratic President Biden, who defeated Trump in the 2020 elections, rescinded all versions of the travel ban on his first day in office in January 2021. This, in practice, reinstated visa processing for previously barred nations. But the damage had been done.&nbsp;Many families - mostly Muslim ones - continued to face visa backlogs, months of uncertainty, separation, and economic or psychological hardship. Communities affected by the ban reported lasting damage in trust, social stability and mental health, according to reports.

Trump’s threat to halt immigration from “Third World countries” is reviving horrible memories of his 2017 'Muslim travel ban'. His executive order caused chaos, protests, legal battles and long-lasting family disruptions. Here is a total recall

President Donald Trump on Thursday night (Nov 27 ) threatened to suspend immigration from what he called “Third World countries” in the wake of a Washington DC shooting of two National Guard soldiers by an Afghan who entered the US as a migrant. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is a 29-year-old who entered under a US resettlement programme following the chaotic 2021 US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. One of the two injured soldiers later died while the other is fighting for life. While it is not clear if Trump would impose a full immigration suspension, his announcement is similar to what he did in 2017. Soon after starting his first term, Trump issued a sweeping travel ban targeting largely Muslim-majority nations, causing significant disruption at airports, family separations, and legal battles. Here is what unfolded in 2017 and its aftermath. But first, let's look at his latest threat. Trump's latest 'reverse migration' threat: What did he say? On Truth Social, Trump wrote: “I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover.” Blaming the previous administration of Joe Biden, Trump added he would “terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions, including those signed by Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen,” and “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country.” He also said the US would end all federal benefits and subsidies to non-citizens, “denaturalise migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity,” and deport any foreign national deemed a public charge, a security risk, or “non-compatible with Western Civilisation.” “Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation,” he concluded, while also sharing an image of the chaotic evacuation of some Afghan civilians in 2021. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-demands-review-of-afghan-immigrants-after-dc-shooting-1764240926003/embed Trump triggers memories, alarm among immigrant communities Trump's pronouncements are reviving a nightmare for migrant communities, refugee-rights groups and legal advocates. If a broad migration pause similar to 2017 is imposed, hundreds of thousands of lives will be disrupted. Years of resettlement efforts would be undone. Debates over immigration, security, and civil rights would be reignited on the streets, screens and courts of America. What happened in 2017? The Trump ‘Muslim travel ban’ and its immediate impact In January 2017, soon after assuming his first term in office, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, barring travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (note that Afghanistan was not included at the time). The order also paused the US Refugee Admissions Programme for four months, and indefinitely stopped Syrian refugee resettlement. Touted as a security measure, the ban’s abrupt rollout caused widespread confusion among government agencies, airlines, airports, passengers, visa-holders and visa-seekers. Also read: I will PERMANENTLY PAUSE migration from all third world countries: Donald Trump Hundreds of travellers were detained or denied boarding at American airports nationwide within hours of the executive order. Nearly 90,000 people were affected by visa revocations and restrictions, with airports becoming battlegrounds of arguments and protests. An estimated 60,000 visas were revoked. Many lawful permanent residents from the seven countries were initially barred from entering the US. Airport chaos and protests after ‘Muslim travel ban’ The ban was seen as an Islamophobic action, with major airports including JFK, Dulles, O’Hare, LAX and San Francisco seeing large-scale disruptions. Even lawful visa holders were detained for hours, often without rightful access to lawyers, with critics calling it the ‘Muslim ban’. Lawyers and community groups mobilised to assist many stranded travellers, even as thousands of protesters gathered outside airports and government buildings. They demanded that stranded individuals be admitted. Even after lengthy vetting, many asylum-seekers, refugees, students and families were denied entry. Also read: All immigration requests for Afghan nationals 'stopped indefinitely', says USCIS Trump's 'Muslim ban' faced legal battles and led to order revisions Legal challenges were filed soon in local and federal courts, which issued temporary restraining orders within days. This essentially blocked the enforcement of the initial order in many places. By March 2017, the administration was forced to rework the policy with a new executive order. Presidential Proclamation 9645 in September 2017 modified the list of affected countries, removing Sudan and later Chad. Later, North Korea and certain Venezuelan officials were added to the travel ban. In June 2018, the US Supreme Court upheld this final version in a 5–4 decision, bowing to presidential authority over matters of national security and immigration. Revocation of the Muslim ban in 2021 After the chaos that continued for several years, Democratic President Biden, who defeated Trump in the 2020 elections, rescinded all versions of the travel ban on his first day in office in January 2021. This, in practice, reinstated visa processing for previously barred nations. But the damage had been done. Many families - mostly Muslim ones - continued to face visa backlogs, months of uncertainty, separation, and economic or psychological hardship. Communities affected by the ban reported lasting damage in trust, social stability and mental health, according to reports.

Trump’s threat to halt immigration from “Third World countries” is reviving horrible memories of his 2017 'Muslim travel ban'. His executive order caused chaos, protests, legal battles and long-lasting family disruptions. Here is a total recall

'REVERSE MIGRATION only can...': Trump threatens to suspend immigration from ‘Third World’. What happened with the ‘Muslim Ban’ of 2017?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump&#39;s controversial executive order, which banned travellers from six Muslim-majority countries and limited refugee admissions.

The March 6 order suspended travel for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks and allow the government to put in place more stringent vetting procedures.

The order took effect in late June, following a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the scope of lower court rulings.

In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban.

The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.

However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump&#39;s refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.

The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.

Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA&#39;s senior director of campaigns, said the refugee ban is inherently cruel.

&quot;The Supreme Court today has dealt yet another devastating blow to vulnerable people who were on the cusp of obtaining safety for themselves and their families,&quot; she said. &quot;They continue to be subjected to unimaginable violence and fear while their lives are in limbo.&quot;

Earlier on Tuesday the state of Hawaii, which challenged the policy, said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still &quot;bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country.&quot; All the 9th Circuit ruling did is &quot;protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores,&quot; Hawaii&#39;s lawyers added.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said he respected the Supreme Court&#39;s decision and is preparing for the hearing there on Oct. 10.

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump's controversial executive order

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world. The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible. The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump's controversial executive order, which banned travellers from six Muslim-majority countries and limited refugee admissions. The March 6 order suspended travel for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks and allow the government to put in place more stringent vetting procedures. The order took effect in late June, following a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the scope of lower court rulings. In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban. The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision. However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump's refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency. The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order. Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA's senior director of campaigns, said the refugee ban is inherently cruel. "The Supreme Court today has dealt yet another devastating blow to vulnerable people who were on the cusp of obtaining safety for themselves and their families," she said. "They continue to be subjected to unimaginable violence and fear while their lives are in limbo." Earlier on Tuesday the state of Hawaii, which challenged the policy, said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still "bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country." All the 9th Circuit ruling did is "protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores," Hawaii's lawyers added. Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said he respected the Supreme Court's decision and is preparing for the hearing there on Oct. 10.

US Supreme Court allows Trump to broadly implement refugee ban

US civil rights groups on Monday roundly slammed President Donald Trump&#39;s revised immigration order as a &quot;Muslim ban&quot; in all but name, and vowed to keep fighting it in court.

&quot;The&nbsp;Trump administration has conceded that its original Muslim ban was indefensible. Unfortunately, it has replaced it with a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws,&quot; said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union&#39;s Immigrant Rights Project.&nbsp;

&quot;The only way to actually&nbsp;fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban,&quot; Jadwat said in a statement.&nbsp;

&quot;Instead,&nbsp;President Trump has recommitted himself to religious discrimination, and&nbsp;he can expect continued disapproval from both the courts and the people.&quot;&nbsp;

The New York Immigration Coalition called the revised ban, which halts new visas for people from six majority-Muslim countries, &quot;a mask for the same old hatred, fear and incompetence.&quot;

&quot;This is just one more example of the president&#39;s concerted effort to divide this country and instill panic and fear in immigrant, refugee and Muslim communities,&quot; said NYIC director Steven Choi.

Human Rights Watch said the changes to the original January 27 order, which fell afoul of the US constitution because it appeared to overtly target Muslims, &quot;are merely cosmetic.&quot;

&quot;President Trump still seems to believe you can determine who&#39;s a terrorist by knowing which country a man, woman or child is from,&quot; said the group&#39;s US immigration researcher Grace Meng.

Rabbi Jack Moline, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said they expect as well to battle the revised order in court.

&quot;Even in its slightly revised form, President Trump&#39;s Muslim ban violates constitutional principles and undermines America&#39;s standing in the world,&quot; Moline said.

&quot;We must be clear that discriminating against millions of people on the basis of their religion does nothing to make Americans safer.&quot;

The United Farm Workers of America, a union fighting a separate Trump effort to expel millions of mostly Latino undocumented immigrants, branded the new travel ban &quot;a grievous affront to the fundamental values that make America an exceptional nation.&quot;

(AFP)

The new order is a 'scaled-back version' that shares the 'same fatal flaws', one of the rights group director said

US civil rights groups on Monday roundly slammed President Donald Trump's revised immigration order as a "Muslim ban" in all but name, and vowed to keep fighting it in court. "The Trump administration has conceded that its original Muslim ban was indefensible. Unfortunately, it has replaced it with a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws," said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrant Rights Project. "The only way to actually fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban," Jadwat said in a statement. "Instead, President Trump has recommitted himself to religious discrimination, and he can expect continued disapproval from both the courts and the people." The New York Immigration Coalition called the revised ban, which halts new visas for people from six majority-Muslim countries, "a mask for the same old hatred, fear and incompetence." "This is just one more example of the president's concerted effort to divide this country and instill panic and fear in immigrant, refugee and Muslim communities," said NYIC director Steven Choi. Human Rights Watch said the changes to the original January 27 order, which fell afoul of the US constitution because it appeared to overtly target Muslims, "are merely cosmetic." "President Trump still seems to believe you can determine who's a terrorist by knowing which country a man, woman or child is from," said the group's US immigration researcher Grace Meng. Rabbi Jack Moline, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said they expect as well to battle the revised order in court. "Even in its slightly revised form, President Trump's Muslim ban violates constitutional principles and undermines America's standing in the world," Moline said. "We must be clear that discriminating against millions of people on the basis of their religion does nothing to make Americans safer." The United Farm Workers of America, a union fighting a separate Trump effort to expel millions of mostly Latino undocumented immigrants, branded the new travel ban "a grievous affront to the fundamental values that make America an exceptional nation." (AFP)

Trump's revised travel order remains Muslim ban: US rights group

A hijab-wearing woman quit her job merely eight days into the Donald Trump administration, due to the Muslim ban imposed by the 70-year-old American president.

Rumana Ahmed, a Bangladeshi immigrant whose family moved to the US in 1978, penned a long piece in The Atlantic to talk about the tenuous eight days she worked for the Trump administration.

Ahmed, in her 30s, had joined the White House in 2011 and later moved to the National Security Council under the Barack Obama administration.

She wrote glowingly about the previous administration, writing that she always felt &quot;welcomed and included&quot;, but the incoming administration&#39;s continuous vilification of the Muslims and the eventual travel ban on Muslims from seven countries firmed her mind to leave her West Wing job.

The George Washington University graduate said she initially felt like sticking on to her job under the new era to provide a &quot;nuanced&quot; understanding of Islam but after the controversial Muslim ban, she knew &quot;she could no longer stay and work for an administration that saw me and people like me not as fellow citizens, but as a threat&quot;.

She also chronicled about her penultimate day at the White House: &quot;The evening before I left, bidding farewell to some of my colleagues, many of whom have also since left, I notified Trump&rsquo;s senior NSC communications adviser, Michael Anton, of my departure, since we shared an office. His initial surprise, asking whether I was leaving government entirely, was followed by silence&ndash;&ndash;almost in caution, not asking why. I told him anyway.

&quot;I told him I had to leave because it was an insult walking into this country&rsquo;s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim. I told him that the administration was attacking the basic tenets of democracy. I told him that I hoped that they and those in Congress were prepared to take responsibility for all the consequences that would attend their decisions.

&quot;He looked at me and said nothing.&quot;

Ahmed&rsquo;s personal account comes amid a spike in incidents of intimidation and assault targeting hijab-wearing women across the US following Trump&rsquo;s electoral triumph.

(WION)

Rumana Ahmed, a Bangladeshi immigrant, said she lasted only eight days under the Trump administration

A hijab-wearing woman quit her job merely eight days into the Donald Trump administration, due to the Muslim ban imposed by the 70-year-old American president. Rumana Ahmed, a Bangladeshi immigrant whose family moved to the US in 1978, penned a long piece in The Atlantic to talk about the tenuous eight days she worked for the Trump administration. Ahmed, in her 30s, had joined the White House in 2011 and later moved to the National Security Council under the Barack Obama administration. She wrote glowingly about the previous administration, writing that she always felt "welcomed and included", but the incoming administration's continuous vilification of the Muslims and the eventual travel ban on Muslims from seven countries firmed her mind to leave her West Wing job. The George Washington University graduate said she initially felt like sticking on to her job under the new era to provide a "nuanced" understanding of Islam but after the controversial Muslim ban, she knew "she could no longer stay and work for an administration that saw me and people like me not as fellow citizens, but as a threat". She also chronicled about her penultimate day at the White House: "The evening before I left, bidding farewell to some of my colleagues, many of whom have also since left, I notified Trump’s senior NSC communications adviser, Michael Anton, of my departure, since we shared an office. His initial surprise, asking whether I was leaving government entirely, was followed by silence––almost in caution, not asking why. I told him anyway. "I told him I had to leave because it was an insult walking into this country’s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim. I told him that the administration was attacking the basic tenets of democracy. I told him that I hoped that they and those in Congress were prepared to take responsibility for all the consequences that would attend their decisions. "He looked at me and said nothing." Ahmed’s personal account comes amid a spike in incidents of intimidation and assault targeting hijab-wearing women across the US following Trump’s electoral triumph. (WION)

Hijab-wearing woman quits White House job after Trump's Muslim ban

trump-muslim-ban

Trump Muslim Ban, News on Trump Muslim Ban, stories on Trump Muslim Ban, articles on Trump Muslim Ban, Trump Muslim Ban stories at Wion, Trump Muslim Ban news, Trump Muslim Ban latest news

trump muslim-ban

'REVERSE MIGRATION only can...': Trump threatens to suspend immigration from ‘Third World’. What happened with the ‘Muslim Ban’ of 2017?

US Supreme Court allows Trump to broadly implement refugee ban

Trump's revised travel order remains Muslim ban: US rights group

Hijab-wearing woman quits White House job after Trump's Muslim ban