Category Archives: Department of Homeland Security

The Biggest Silent Lie Yet?

Posted on by

Hillary’s fingerprints are all over this and it is likely the biggest betrayal to the families and the U.S. taxpayers yet. The shame never ends.

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. TAXPAYERS, NOT TEHRAN, COMPENSATED VICTIMS OF IRANIAN ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICANS
BY JONATHAN BRODER

Newsweek: A little-noticed side agreement to the Iran nuclear deal has unexpectedly reopened painful wounds for the families of more than a dozen Americans attacked or held hostage by Iranian proxies in recent decades. U.S. officials, the families say, insisted that Tehran would pay for financing or directing the attacks, but American taxpayers wound up paying instead.


The agreement, which resolved a long-running financial dispute with Iran, involved the return of $400 million in Iranian funds that the U.S. seized after the 1979 Islamic revolution, plus another $1.3 billion in interest. Announced on January 17—the same day the two countries implemented the nuclear deal and carried out a prisoner swap—President Barack Obama presented the side agreement as a bargain for the United States, noting that a claims tribunal in the Hague could have awarded Iran a much larger judgment. “For the United States, this settlement saved us billions of dollars that could have been pursued by Iran,” Obama said.


But for the victims, the side deal is a betrayal, not a bargain. In 2000, the Clinton administration agreed to pay the $400 million to more than a dozen Americans who had won judgments against Iran in U.S. courts. At the time, American officials assured the victims that the Treasury would be reimbursed from the seized Iranian funds. That same year, Congress passed a law empowering the president to get the money from Iran. “We all believed that Iran would pay our damages, not U.S. taxpayers,” says Stephen Flatow, a New Jersey real estate lawyer who received $24 million for the death of his 19-year-old daughter in a 1995 bus bombing in the Gaza Strip. “And now, 15 years later, we find out that they never deducted the money from the account. It makes me nauseous. The Iranians aren’t paying a cent.”
Flatow’s cohorts agree. They include the families and survivors of some of the most high-profile foreign attacks against Americans in recent decades. Among them: five former Beirut hostages whom the Iran-backed Islamist group Hezbollah held for years during the 1980s; the wife of U.S. Marine Colonel William Higgins, whom Hezbollah kidnapped in 1988, before torturing and hanging him; the family of Navy diver Robert Stethem, whom an Iranian-backed group murdered in Beirut during the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner; and a family whose daughter was killed in a Hamas bus bombing in Jerusalem in 1996.
Stuart Eizenstat, a deputy Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration who helped negotiate the settlement, admits he never told the victims and their families the truth about the money. Unbeknownst to the victims and their lawyers, he says, Tehran had filed a claim with the U.S.-Iran tribunal in the Hague over the funds. “We didn’t have the full freedom to say we’re just going to take the $400 million because that money was now part of a formal claim,” Eizenstat says.
What’s further angered the victims and their families: A senior Iranian military official now claims the $1.7 billion is effectively a ransom for the five American hostages Tehran released in January. “This money was returned for the freedom of the U.S. spies, and it was not related to the nuclear negotiations,” Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi said Wednesday, according to the state-run Fars News Agency. The Obama administration denies any link between the prisoners and the $1.7 billion. But Republicans, already fuming over the nuclear deal, are now calling for an inquiry. “It’s bad enough the administration is giving Iran over $100 billion in direct sanctions relief, resumed oil sales and new international trade,” says Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. “But now it’s using U.S. taxpayer money to pay the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism a $1.7 billion ‘settlement.’”
Administration officials are trying to play down the deal, noting it follows a 2000 law that created the compensation mechanism for the victims and their families. One official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in accordance with State Department protocol, says the law only required the U.S. government, acting in place of the victims, to deal with their damage claims “to the satisfaction of the United States, which was the case with this settlement.” A major reason the U.S. was satisfied: The U.S. and Iran disagreed over whether the $400 million should have been placed in an interest-bearing account in 1979. “We reached this settlement on interest,” the official says, “to avoid significant potential exposure we faced at the tribunal on that question.”
But the revelation that Iran never paid the money has hit some of the families hard. They’ve lost the feeling that some measure of justice was served. “I feel like a schnorrer,” says Flatow, using the Yiddish term for a mooch, because U.S. taxpayers, not Iran, paid his damages. Other victims say they’re bothered by the administration’s reluctance to discuss the details of the side deal. It’s brought back memories from 20 years ago, when the victims won their judgments against Iran in U.S. courts, only to find themselves blocked at every turn by the Clinton administration. “There are limited ways to react to your child getting murdered,” says Leonard Eisenfeld, a Connecticut doctor whose son was killed in the 1996 bus bombing in Jerusalem. “Creating a financial deterrent to prevent Iran from more terrorism was one way, but we had to struggle very hard to do that.”
In a series of legal challenges, Clinton administration officials identified $20 million in Iranian assets in America. Among them: Tehran’s Washington embassy and several consulates around the country. But in arguments that sometimes echoed Tehran’s concerns, the officials maintained that attaching those assets to pay even a small portion the victims’ damages would violate U.S. obligations to respect the sovereign immunity of other countries’ diplomatic property.
Though their arguments succeeded in court, the optics were bad. The case caught the attention of the media and Congress, where many lawmakers openly supported the victims. The contours of a settlement began to emerge when lawyers for some of the victims, acting on a tip from a sympathizer inside the administration, located the $400 million in Iranian funds languishing in a foreign military sales (FMS) account at the Treasury. The money came from payments made by the shah for U.S. military equipment that was never delivered after the Iranian leader was overthrown in 1979. After several more clashes with the administration over the funds, first lady Hillary Clinton stepped in at a time when the bitter battles could have hurt her with Jewish voters in her 2000 bid for a New York Senate seat. She persuaded her husband to appoint Jacob Lew, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to negotiate a settlement that would utilize the frozen Iranian funds.
That same year, Congress passed the legislation that paved the way for an agreement. The legislation required the Treasury to pay the $400 million in damages and empowered the president to seek reimbursement from Iran. Flatow, who had insisted the payments come directly from the Iranian account, recalls his negotiations with Lew. “I said, ‘Jack, where’s the money coming from? Is it coming from the foreign military sales account?’ And he said, ‘No, Steve. All checks that the United States of America writes come from the United States Treasury. But the statute says that we have the right to offset any payments we make against that FMS money.’ So I said, ‘OK, it’s not what I was hoping for, but it’s a settlement.’ We got paid in 2001. And we all believed that the government would reimburse itself from Iran’s foreign military sales account.”
Lew, now Obama’s Treasury secretary, declined to comment, as did former officials from the George W. Bush administration, which also never reimbursed the Treasury from the Iran weapons account.

In retrospect, Eizenstat, the former deputy Treasury secretary, says it was a mistake to pay the judgments against Iran using U.S. funds with no financial consequences for Tehran. The payments have made Flatow, Eisenfeld and the others the only victims of Iranian attacks to receive compensation. That is expected to change this year now that Congress has established a $1 billion fund to begin paying other notable victims of Iranian attacks, including the Tehran embassy hostages and survivors of the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut. This time, however, the money for their damage judgments will come not from U.S. taxpayers but from fines collected from a French bank that laundered billions for Iran.
For Flatow and others like him, that’s little consolation. In the agreement, he notes, “there wasn’t a single sentence, not a single word that would ameliorate the pain of people who lost their loved ones. That’s very hurtful.”

Lynch Wants $80 for More Control Control

Posted on by

AG Lynch: We Want $80 Million For Obama’s Gun-Control Plan

The price tag for implementing President Obama’s executive gun controls is $80 million, Attorney General Loretta Lynch declared during her January 20 testimony before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee.

Breitbart: Lynch said the administration will begin pushing for the money in Obama’s 2017 budget request, due next month, according to ABC News.

She’s already meeting some opposition. “This subcommittee will have no part in undermining the Constitution and the rights that it protects,” subcommittee chairman Senator Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)  told Lynch.

But another Republican lawmaker–Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)– suggested she would support the program to expand of background checks on gun-purchasers.

In addition to expanding background checks, putting new requirements on federally licensed gun dealers, and co-opting a ban on gun ownership for some Social Security beneficiaries, Obama’s executive gun controls include the hiring of “more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process…background checks.”

Lynch tried to sell the gun-control plan to the subcommittee by claiming that a “glitch” in the background-check system allowed Dylann Roof to buy the gun he used to kill nine people in June 2015 at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Charleston, S.C.

But this claim runs counter to a statement from FBI Director James Comey. Roof obtained his gun, not because of a problem with background check system, but because of a clerical error made by one of the FBI reviewers who was carrying out Roof’s background check, Comey said.

*** Lynch was recently at the Al Sharpton National Action Network speaking at a breakfast honoring Martin Luther King. If there any questions about who she really is and what she is up to, here are more clues:

Dr. King’s words and deeds – and those of the millions who stood with him – are not vestiges of history, but timeless calls to action.

That call – that mission – has animated the Department of Justice since the inception of this Administration and it fuels our ongoing work to ensure that everyone in this country can achieve the full blessings of American life.  Our revitalized Civil Rights Division – the conscience of the department, led by the outstanding Vanita Gupta – is committed to ensuring that access to the ballot box is as fair and unencumbered as Dr. King dreamed it would be.  Wherever the franchise is being diminished – whether through historical barriers or newly erected ones – we stand prepared to use every tool at our disposal to protect the sacred American right to vote.  The Civil Rights Division is making significant progress bringing criminal civil rights cases, as well.  Over the course of this Administration, we have filed more criminal civil rights cases and prosecuted and convicted more defendants on hate crimes charges than at any other point in the Justice Department’s history.  And we’re working to protect civil rights within criminal justice, in part by strengthening relationships between law enforcement and the communities we serve and ensuring constitutional policing across the country.  We have launched a variety of new programs and innovative efforts at the local level – including my own six-city listening tour – to promote community policing and to build the relationships of trust that are so vital to effective law enforcement.

More broadly, we are working to ensure the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system.  At the federal level, we are continuing to implement the “Smart on Crime” initiative – a bold reorientation of our prosecutorial approach that Attorney General Holder initiated in 2013.  In its first two years, Smart on Crime has not only been a bipartisan rallying point, but also a resounding success, with federal prosecutors using their resources conscientiously to bring the most serious wrongdoers to justice and with the overall crime rate declining in tandem with the overall incarceration rate for the first time in four decades.  But for fairness to be consistent and to have meaning, we have to look at every stage of the criminal justice process.  That is why we are working to end the school-to-prison pipeline to keep our children on the right path and out of the criminal justice system.  That is why we are investing in diversion and treatment programs that take an evidence-based approach to public health and criminal justice.  And that is why we are making sure that formerly incarcerated individuals have the tools and resources they need to successfully rejoin society and contribute to their communities.  We recently partnered with the Department of Education to extend Pell Grant support to some incarcerated individuals so that they can pursue an education that will not only reduce their likelihood of recidivism, but also throw open doors to opportunity. For all the details on what Lynch said , go here.

*** Note she was hanging with Al Sharpton at the National Action Network, a corrupt organization that owes millions in delinquent income taxes…..

Hey John Kerry, Iran’s Khamenei is Calling you a Liar

Posted on by

People paying attention to the relationship between Iran and the United States, we tend to agree that John Kerry is a liar, but for much different reasons.

From Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, More Anti-American Rhetoric

WSJ: Less than a week after economic sanctions against Iran were lifted as implementation of the nuclear deal began, and the U.S. and Iran exchanged prisoners, Iran’s supreme leader resumed his anti-American rhetoric. In a letter to President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the government against U.S. “deceptions” and sought to play down the significance of the nuclear agreement and its economic benefits for Iran.

The ayatollah’s tough talk fits the image he likes to project of the unwavering enemy of the world’s greatest power; but his remarks must be seen in context. Clearly, Iran’s supreme leader is not above compromises with the nation he calls the Great Satan. He allowed the nuclear negotiations to play out. His own “red lines” on these negotiations were crossed. The ayatollah supposedly barred Iranian officials from negotiating with the U.S. about anything but the nuclear issue, yet Iranian intelligence officials secretly negotiated a prisoner exchange with U.S. officials at the same time, and Iranian diplomats continue talking to their U.S. counterparts about Syria. A role for U.S. oil companies seems inevitable as Iran, released from sanctions, moves to develop its oil and gas industries.

Ayatollah Khamenei has voiced concerns about what he calls the American, or Western, “cultural onslaught.” He has warned that relations with the U.S. would have a considerable impact on Iranian society, particularly on youth.

On the economy, too, he wishes to project the image of the bulwark against the lure of Western investment or Iran’s integration into the world economy. In a tweet to his president, the supreme leader reverted to his oft-repeated theme that the Islamic Republic should rely on an “economy of resistance” and “self-sufficiency,” rather than on outsiders lifting sanctions, to achieve economic prosperity.

Here, too, reality is bound to intrude. Thirty-six years after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iran imports huge amounts of its food, machinery, and consumer goods, and it remains highly dependent on oil exports for earnings. The “economy of resistance” to which Iranian officials pay lip service remains beyond reach.

Ayatollah Khamenei’s attempt to retain the support of his hard-line constituency while adjusting to regional realities was evident elsewhere. Nearly three weeks after a mob ransacked and set fire to the Saudi embassy in Tehran, the ayatollah condemned the incident, calling it “very bad” and “detrimental to the country and Islam.” Apparently he felt the need to try to repair the damage the attack had inflicted on Iran’s relations with almost all other Arab countries. Taking his time to speak out is nothing new; it took Ayatollah Khamenei even longer to criticize the mobs who trashed the British embassy in Tehran in 2011. Still, these incidents should not be used to as an excuse to condemn “devoted, revolutionary, and [god-loving] youth,” he said.

Meanwhile, the ayatollah’s position on domestic politics has shifted very little. He gave a speech this week but said nothing about election supervisory councils disqualifying a large number of candidates, including many reformists, for parliamentary elections next month. Would-be reformers have complained that their candidates have been targeted, and President Rouhani has sharply criticized the disqualifications. “If only one faction is present in the vote, and the other is not, then why are we holding elections,” he reportedly said this week. The president has promised to take the matter up with the Council of Guardians, a 12-member body dominated by senior clerics that has final say on candidacies. The president and his supporters have been hoping the elections would give Mr. Rouhani a workable majority in parliament. Ayatollah Khamenei, while urging those opposed to the system to vote, has treated it as natural that opponents of the system should be barred from running for office. It is a mantra of Iranian hard-liners that many reformists are “seditionists” and enemies of the system.

On the other hand, the supreme leader has long regarded large-scale voter participation in elections as an important sign of the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy and acceptance by the people. After the 2009 presidential election, millions of Iranians poured into the streets, outraged that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner. Those protests shook the regime to its foundation; their shadow has hovered over subsequent elections. To ensure a large turnout and to mute controversy, Ayatollah Khamenei may yet nudge the Council of Guardians into allowing a significant number of prominent reformist candidates to run in February.

France warns the entire European project is in ‘very grave danger’

Posted on by

EU leaders consider two-year suspension of Schengen rules

Leaders will consider emergency measures to reintroduce internal borders at meeting on Monday, as France warns the entire European project is in ‘very grave danger’

TelegraphUK: The Schengen system of free movement could be suspended for two years under emergency measures to be discussed by European ministers on Monday, as the French Prime Minister warned the crisis could bring down the entire European Union.

Manuel Valls said that the “very idea of Europe” will be torn apart until the flows of migrants expected to surge in spring are turned away.

On Monday, interior ministers from the EU will meet in Amsterdam to discuss emergency measures to allow states to reintroduce national border controls for two years.

The powers are allowed under the Schengen rules, but would amount to an unprecedented abandonment of the 30-year old agreement that allows passport-free travel across 26 states.

The measure could be brought in from May, when a six-month period of passport checks introduced by Germany expires. The European Commission would have to agree that there are “persistent serious deficiencies” in the Schengen zone’s external border to activate it.

“This possibility exists, it is there and the Commission is prepared to use it if need be,” said Natasha Bertaud, a spokesman for Jean-Claude Juncker.

Greece has been blamed by states for failing to identify and register hundreds of thousands of people flowing over its borders.

Other states that have introduced emergency controls are Sweden, Austria, France, Denmark and Norway, which is not in the EU but is in Schengen.

“We’re not currently in that situation,” Ms Bertaud added. “But interior ministers will on Monday in Amsterdam have the opportunity to discuss and it’s on the agenda what steps should be taken or will need to be taken once we near the end of the maximum period in May.”

Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, will attend the meeting.

in numbers

European refugee crisis

Pic: Action Press/REX Shutterstock

1 million

Refugees and migrants have arrived in Europe via illegal routes

38 percent

Proportion of migrants who are from Syria

1,200,000

Syrian refugees being housed in Lebanon – a country 100 times smaller than Europe

One in five

Proportion of people in Lebanon who are refugees

1 in 122

According to the head of the UN refugee agency, one in 122 people is a refugee

1.2 percent

Proportion of migrants who land in Italy and Greece, then get as far as Calais

100,000

Illegal migrants were stopped from entering Britain by UK Border Force officials in 2015

15 per cent

Proportion of female refugees from Syria who are pregnant in Turkey

Data as of November 2015

In a further blow, Mr Valls said that France would keep its state of emergency, which has included border checks, until the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant network is destroyed.

“It is a total and global war that we are facing with terrorism,” he said.

He warned that without proper border controls to turn away refugees, the 60-year old European project could disintegrate.

“It’s Europe that could die, not the Schengen area. If Europe can’t protect its own borders, it’s the very idea of Europe that could be thrown into doubt. It could disappear, of course – the European project, not Europe itself, not our values, but the concept we have of Europe, that the founding fathers had of Europe.

Migrants help children go over a fence as refugees waits to cross the Slovenian-Austrian border in Sentilj, Slovenia

“Yes, that is in very grave danger. That’s why you need border guards, border controls on the external borders of the European Union.”

He said Europe must tell refugees that they cannot expect to reach Europe.

“We cannot say or accept that all refugees can be welcomed in Europe,”

“Germany is faced with a major challenge. We need to help Germany. But the first message we need to send now is with the greatest of firmness is to say that we will not welcome all the refugees in Europe. Because a message that says come, you will be welcome, provokes major shifts,” he told the BBC.

Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister, said that a fence should be erected on the Macedonian and Bulgarian borders with Greece to curb the inflow of migrants into Europe.

Stefan Lofven, the Swedish Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister, and Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, have each in the past week said that leaders have until March to save the Schengen zone.

Jean-Claude Juncker has warned that is the Schengen zone dies then the euro and the single market could follow.

The Schengen Agreement

What is it?

An agreement, signed in 1985 in the town of Schengen in Luxembourg, to remove border checks within Europe. It means anyone, regardless of nationality, can move freely between member states without showing a passport or visa

Who is a member?

Not the UK. But most EU states are in, as are Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. In total, 26 countries comprising 400 million people

Why is it under strain?

Terrorists and mass migration. Police checks have been brought in on the Italian border at the request of Bavaria, amid a wave of non-EU migrants attempting to reach Germany. Angela Merkel warns the system will be pulled apart unless countries share asylum seekers. And Belgium wants more ID checks on trains in the wake of the Thalys train terrorist attack

Are checks legal?

Police are allowed to make targeted ‘security’ checks on the border, and states can impose border controls in an emergency or for major events for up to 30 days. But permanent, systematic checks on passports are forbidden

What does the European Union say?

Jean Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, says the system is non-negotiable, irreversible, and the EU’s greatest achievement

What do Eurosceptics say?

“Schengen has now hit the buffers of the real world and is falling apart,” says Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

 

Austria announced on Wednesday that it planned to limit the number of people allowed to apply for asylum to 1.5 percent of its population over the next four years, or 37,500.

The move piles more pressure on Angela Merkel, who is facing intense demands from her conservative allies to follow suit.

EU border agency Frontex said on Friday some 108,000 migrants arrived in December in Greece.

That compares to 150,000 arrivals in November and puts the total for Greece and Italy at 1.04 million in 2015, or five times as many as in 2014, Frontex said.

Crossings have slowed due to the cold weather, and are expected to surge when the spring returns.

DHS is Not Deporting Visa Overstays

Posted on by

The numbers are staggering but just for the time period of 2015, 482,000 are residing in the United States illegally. This number is clearly worse than those numbers coming in from the southern border.

DHS admits it’s not deporting most visa overstays

WashingtonExaminer: A pair of Department of Homeland Security officials told the Senate Wednesday that the government does not search for most of the people who overstay their temporary visas, a day after DHS said that nearly 500,000 people were still in the U.S. after having overstayed their visas last year.

“I didn’t mean to imply that we’re actually out monitoring them,” Craig Healy, an assistant director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., during Senate Judiciary subcommittee panel. Healy said that they review the universe of people who overstayed their visas and “prioritize” the deportation of people who went on to commit other crimes.

Their exchange came at the outset of a hearing on the federal government’s failure to implement a biometric system to track entries into and exits from the country, as required by a 2004 law. A Customs and Border Patrol official said the program couldn’t be implemented without causing “gridlock” at U.S. airports, a response that failed to allay bipartisan concern that the lack of this system is an ongoing national security threat.

“The biometric exit system is still not off the ground and that is unfortunate, very unfortunate, because it is a matter of national security,” New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader-in-waiting, said during the hearing.

John Wagner, deputy assistant commissioner of field operations for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, said the program couldn’t be implemented without causing two-hour delays when boarding airplanes. “It’s the placement of the technology and how you collect it to ensure that the person actually departed the United States,” Wagner said. “There’s no zone to do that.”

These answers frustrated Democratic lawmakers who otherwise disagree with Sessions and other immigration hawks the issue of border security and deportations. “It’s hard for me to envision that we can’t figure out where to get a space to do this at an airport or seaport,” said Senator Al Franken, D-Minn. “If you can’t solve it in 11 or 12 years, how can we know it will ever be solved?”

DHS’s report saying hundreds of thousands of people remained in the United States after having overstayed their visas drew complaints from both parties, but Sessions in particular.

“That is a population of individuals that is larger than any city in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina,” Sessions said. Healy replied that about 3,000 of the people who had overstayed their visas were under investigation, a statistic Sessions cited to argue that President Obama’s team has made no effort to implement the system or to deport people who overstay their visas, as long as those people “keep their nose clean” and do nothing to draw the attention of law enforcement or counterterrorism officials.

He said the lack of a biometric exit system was part of a broader failure by the Obama administration to implement federal immigration law.

“Our executive branch is on strike against the will of the American people,” Sessions said. “Simply put, there is no border at all if we don’t enforce our visa rules.”

****

Hold on, there is more…

Administration eases visa rules for travelers visiting terror hotspots

FNC: The Obama administration on Thursday eased visa rules for certain European travelers who have visited terror hotspots in the Middle East and Africa, triggering a backlash from congressional lawmakers who sought the restrictions for security reasons.

Moments after the announcement, two key Republicans declared the administration is “blatantly breaking the law” – a law that President Obama signed – by implementing the changes.

“This is not a difference of opinion over statutory interpretation, it is a clear contradiction of the law and the agreement we reached with the White House,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., author of the bill, said in a statement.

The revised requirements announced Thursday pertain to changes passed by Congress in the Visa Waiver Program.

Lawmakers had sought new restrictions to tighten up the program – which allows visa-free travel for residents of eligible countries — in order to prevent Europeans who have joined ISIS from entering the United States. Under the newly passed Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, nationals of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Sudan as well as other travelers who have visited those countries since Mar. 1, 2011 now must apply for a visa in order to travel to the U.S.

The administration implemented those changes Thursday — but with some changes of its own.

Under the revised requirements, some Europeans who have traveled to those four countries in the last five years may still be allowed to travel to the United States without obtaining a visa if they meet certain criteria.

The administration announced it will use its waiver authority — granted to it in the legislation — to give waivers to travelers who traveled to the terror hotspots as journalists, for work with humanitarian agencies or on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations and sub-national governments on official duty.

Further, an additional waiver was announced for people who have traveled to Iran “for legitimate business-related purposes” since the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal in July. The administration offers waivers for individuals who have traveled to Iraq for business as well.

Republicans reacted angrily to the waivers, saying the Obama administration had exploited the limited authority and has compromised national security.

“President Obama and his administration’s decision to abuse their limited waiver authority and allow scores of people who have traveled to or are dual nationals of countries like Iraq and Syria flies in the face of reason and congressional intent,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement.

“The Obama Administration is essentially rewriting the law by blowing wide open a small window of discretion that Congress gave it for law enforcement and national security reasons,” Goodlatte said.

Under the visa program itself, citizens of 38 countries, mostly in Europe, are generally allowed to travel to the United States without applying for a visa. But they still have to submit biographical information to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA.

The Homeland Security Department said waivers for some ESTA applicants will be granted on a “case-by-case” basis. Those travelers who are denied visa-free travel can still apply for visa through a U.S. embassy in their home country.

The new restrictions had previously been criticized by the Iranian government which suggested the U.S. might be violating the nuclear deal by penalizing legitimate business travel to the country.