# How does the State Department's extreme vetting delay a visa when no travel ban has been enforced?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-state-departments-extreme-vetting-delay-a-visa-when-no-travel-ban-has-been-enforced/788259>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [June 6, 2017, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-state-departments-extreme-vetting-delay-a-visa-when-no-travel-ban-has-been-enforced/788259 "2017-06-06T07:54:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\
**Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-state-departments-extreme-vetting-delay-a-visa-when-no-travel-ban-has-been-enforced/788259/1 "2017-06-06T07:54:09Z")

</div>

How does the State Department’s extreme vetting delay a visa when no travel ban has been enforced? I don’t understand how that works.I look forward to your feedback.  
This article does not clarify the procedure.

> **[Trump administration already using ‘extreme vetting’ on visitors’ social media](https://nypost.com/2017/06/06/trump-administration-already-using-extreme-vetting-on-visitors-social-media/)**
>
> President Trump’s travel ban may be on hold, but his administration is conducting “extreme vetting” before allowing some visitors into the United States. Starting on May 25, the State Department be…

"President Trump’s travel ban may be on hold, but his administration is conducting “extreme vetting” before allowing some visitors into the United States.

Starting on May 25, the State Department began red-flagging certain visa applicants when they applied from overseas, requiring them to supply their social media history for signs of radicalization or terrorist connections.

The stepped-up measures affect less than one percent of visa applicants — but that’s still up to 130,000 people worldwide.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\
**Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-state-departments-extreme-vetting-delay-a-visa-when-no-travel-ban-has-been-enforced/788259/2 "2017-06-06T08:54:30Z")

</div>

The extreme vetting takes longer than the usual process. A more time consuming process = a delayed visa.

Or have I misinterpreted your question?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\
**Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-state-departments-extreme-vetting-delay-a-visa-when-no-travel-ban-has-been-enforced/788259/3 "2017-06-06T09:27:39Z")

</div>

> [@naita](#):
>
> The extreme vetting takes longer than the usual process. A more time consuming process = a delayed visa.
> 
> Or have I misinterpreted your question?

Sorry Naita. What I am interested in knowing is, what powers the State Department has that might thwart a Supreme Court’s upholding of the Fourth Circuit Court’s travel ban injunction if that should happen? As I understand it, the State Department can simply delay processing. But for how long? What length of time is unacceptable? What recourse does the State Department have to get around a travel ban injunction or would at least greatly inconvenience visa applicants?

> **[Trump administration to Supreme Court: give us the travel ban now, rule on it...](https://www.vox.com/2017/6/2/15728434/muslim-ban-supreme-court-trump)**
>
> In an unusual and aggressive move, the administration wants to skip a few steps in the court process.

“Whether the Supreme Court grants all of the Trump administration’s requests depends on whether the Court’s conservative wing (now including Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch) accepts the administration’s argument that the executive branch’s authority on immigration and national security is absolute enough, and important enough, that the lower-court decisions against the administration are a horrific error that’s worth skipping a few procedural steps to fix.”