Trump's new travel ban targeting 12 countries takes effect
A new travel ban signed by US President Donald Trump officially took effect today, Monday, 9 June.
As reported by BBC , the travel ban essentially bars nationals from 12 countries from entering the US.
These countries include: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
Travellers from seven other countries – Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela – will also face partial restrictions.
According to reports, the White House said the so-called 'common sense restrictions' was meant to protect national security and prevent 'dangerous foreign actors' from entering the US.
This also marks the second time Trump has implemented a broad travel ban. A similar policy was signed in 2017 during his first term, sparking widespread legal battles and protests.
While the order is sweeping, it does include several exemptions. The travel ban does not apply to: Lawful permanent US residents (green card holders)
Immediate family members of US residents who hold immigrant visas
US government employees with Special Immigrant Visas
Children being adopted by US citizens
Dual nationals when the individual is not travelling on a passport from one of the affected countries
Afghan nationals with Special Immigrant Visas
Holders of 'immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran'
Foreign nationals entering with specific non-immigrant visas
Athletes, coaches, and support staff attending major sporting events like the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
35 minutes ago
- IOL News
The logic behind Dawie Roodt's conclusion that 'Most South African universities must be closed'
History has no blank pages. Lest we forget the teaching of Hendrik Verwoerd that: 'There is no place for [the Bantu] in the European community above the level of certain forms of Labour…. What is the use of teaching the Bantu child mathematics when it cannot use it in practice'. Exactly 31 years into a democracy, Roodt still dreams of an apartheid where whites saw themselves as the chosen (theologically, racially, politically, economically) nation of South Africa, 'De la Rey, De la Rey, sal jy die Boere kom lei'. A declaration by Roodt that 'most South African universities must be closed' and that only 10% should be allowed at universities is traced in the Afrikaner ideology, apartheid and a view 'net vir die blankes', an education for a few. Apartheid was a policy of segregation and political, social, and economic against black South Africans. The current statistic suggests that there are around 7% whites in the country, and this is the basis of Roodt's argument. In apartheid South Africa, schooling was compulsory for whites but not for Africans. Roodt has exceptions a 3% perhaps for future expansion of the white race or he wants to have exceptions for 'clever blacks' or house negros or Uncle Toms or Tengo Jabavu(s) who might be useful for the system for a whiteness project. Before we rush to conclude and argue that at least the 1953 Bantu Education Act created an opportunity for blacks to study or to even suggest that Verwoerd did not imply exclusion of black in all education, it is important to recall that the Act was created for black South Africans and to prepare them for lives as labouring class. Roodt base his argument on skills relevancy and on performance, and of course, the preceding sentence exposes his background and that his logic is rooted in the Bantu Act.
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Iran says to submit own nuclear proposal to US soon
Iran said on Monday it will soon present a counter-proposal on a nuclear deal with the United States, after it had described Washington's offer as containing "ambiguities". Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear accord to replace the deal with major powers that US President Donald Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. The longtime foes have been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington describing it as a "red line". On May 31, after the fifth round of talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later saying the text contained "ambiguities". Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei criticised the US proposal as "lacking elements" reflective of the previous rounds of negotiations, without providing further details. "We will soon submit our own proposed plan to the other side through (mediator) Oman once it is finalised," Baqaei told a weekly press briefing. "It is a proposal that is reasonable, logical and balanced, and we strongly recommend that the American side value this opportunity." Iran's parliament speaker has said the US proposal failed to include the lifting of sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years. - 'Strategic mistake' - Trump, who has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions on Iran since taking office in January, has repeatedly said Tehran will not be allowed any uranium enrichment under a potential deal. On Wednesday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the US offer was "100 percent against" notions of independence and self-reliance. He insisted that uranium enrichment was "key" to Iran's nuclear programme and that the US "cannot have a say" on the issue. Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. The United Nations nuclear watchdog on Monday began a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna that will last until Friday to discuss Iran's nuclear activities among other topics. "I call upon Iran urgently to cooperate fully and effectively with the International Atomic Energy Agency," said agency chief Rafael Grossi in his opening speech. "Unless and until Iran assists the agency in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful," he added. Earlier, the agency released a report criticising "less than satisfactory" cooperation from Tehran, particularly in explaining past cases of nuclear material found at undeclared sites. Iran has criticised the IAEA report as unbalanced, saying it relied on "forged documents" provided by its arch foe Israel. Britain, France and Germany, the three European countries that are party to the 2015 deal, are currently weighing whether to trigger the sanctions "snapback" mechanism in the accord. The mechanism would reinstate UN sanctions in response to Iranian non-compliance -- an option that expires in October. On Friday, Araghchi warned European powers against backing a draft resolution at the IAEA accusing Tehran of non-compliance, calling it a "strategic mistake". On Monday, Baqaei said Iran has "prepared and formulated a series of steps and measures" if the resolution is passed. "Without a doubt, the response to confrontation will not be more cooperation," he added.
TimesLIVE
3 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
15 states sue over Trump move to return seized rapid-fire devices for guns
Fifteen Democratic-led US states filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to block Republican President Donald Trump's administration from returning thousands of previously seized devices that can be used to convert semi-automatic rifles into weapons that can shoot as quickly as machine guns. The states filed the lawsuit in federal court in Baltimore in the wake of the administration's May 16 settlement that resolved litigation involving a ban on certain 'forced-reset triggers' imposed by the government under Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. The states in the lawsuit said such devices remain illegal to possess under federal law. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under Biden issued the ban after it determined that some of these devices should be classified as illegal machine guns under a federal law called the National Firearms Act. 'We will not stand by as the Trump administration attempts to secretly legalise machine guns in an effort to once again put firearms industry profits over the safety of our residents,' New Jersey attorney-general Matthew Platkin said. The lawsuit was led by New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, and also included the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington as well as the District of Columbia. The Trump administration's settlement reversed course on the Biden administration's policies. The settlement resolved lawsuits brought by a gun rights group challenging the ban and cases brought by Biden's justice department against a manufacturer of the devices. Those cases had resulted in conflicting court rulings over the legality of classifying these devices as illegal machine guns. As part of the settlement, the Trump administration agreed to not apply the machine gun ban to such devices as long as they are not designed for use with handguns and agreed to return nearly 12,000 forced-reset triggers that had been seized by the government to their owners. The new lawsuit seeks to block the return of these devices to their owners. The states said conversion devices like forced reset triggers have been frequently used in recent years in violent crimes and mass shootings, and that at least 100,000 such devices that were distributed nationally in recent years should be considered illegal machine guns. The justice department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
