The emails reveal concerns about the impact of Mr Trump’s travel ban on UK citizens and national security.

Officials did not want to be caught out by similar orders issued by the US president “just as London is going to sleep”, one official said.

The emails were released to the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act.

The BBC’s Diplomatic Correspondent James Landale said: “These emails show just how concerned the Foreign Office was about the flow of unexpected announcements emerging from the Trump White House and the potential impact on the UK.”

“But we have to remember that this concern was also shared by other parts of the US administration that were at times equally blindsided by the president’s early morning tweets,” added our correspondent.

“So the emails do not reflect any particular deterioration in UK-US relations. They illustrate the kind of steps foreign governments have had to consider to cope with Mr Trump’s unpredictable style of government.”

Most of the emails released to the BBC were between the British Embassy in Washington and the Foreign Office around the time of Mr Trump’s executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The order, signed on 27 January, was one of string of decrees, proclamations and orders issued by Mr Trump during his first weeks in the White House. It was signed hours after Prime Minister Theresa May became the first foreign leader to meet Mr Trump at the White House.

Foreign Office officials feared the ban would prevent thousands of UK citizens with dual nationality travelling to the United States and discussed the likely impact of that on relations between Mrs May and the new president.

“BE (British Embassy) Washington have been trying to get clarity from State (The State Department) without luck so far,” officials said in an internal Foreign Office email dated 28 January – the day after Mr Trump signed the order.

“If true, this would obviously mean thousands of dual nationals with British passports being banned from travelling to the US. Not great after the PM visit.”

Another email, on the same day, said: “The dual nationals angle will of course be really difficult for us. I’ll come back to you when I have more on our response.”

In the end, the new restrictions did not apply to British citizens with dual citizenship, but officials were keen not to be caught out again by the actions of President Trump.

On 30 January, Kara Owen, director of the Americas desk at the Foreign Office sent an email around the Foreign Office, including to the deputy British ambassador to the US Patrick Davies, asking for a new warning system to be set up to look at the impact of Mr Trump’s executive orders on British interests.

“Many of these orders will no doubt be issued just as London is going to sleep,” she said.

“I would like us to establish a system for assessing impact of the orders on U.K. interests (if any) and offering quick advice on what to do about it to the right readership (including senior readers in FCO and Whitehall, press and private offices).”

She added: “I would welcome any other predictions about EOs (executive orders) foreshadowed during the campaign and likely to touch on our interests – he is doing a lot of what he said he would.”

The documents also reveal the EU contacted the Foreign Office to check whether Britain was attempting to get a special deal for its citizens in the aftermath of Mr Trump’s travel ban – and concerns about the impact on national security.

In one exchange, the Home Office’s international director, Richard Clarke, discusses “potential UK activism/adverse reaction” in response to the travel ban, with officials at the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism.

Also released was a heavily redacted analysis of the first three weeks of the Trump presidency, including a section entitled “Video killed the radio star”.

The documents reveal civil servants expected a change in Theresa May’s friendly outlook towards the US President should British citizens be banned from entering the United States.

“You might have seen that the PM didn’t engage on the question on Trump’s immigration policy saying they were for the US,” said one official, referring to Mrs May’s press conference in Turkey on 28 January, when she was questioned about the policy.

“Presumably that changes if Brits (ie dual nationals) are blocked from entering the US?,” replied another official.

The document warned that questions on whether the government explicitly supported US immigration policy were a “bear trap”.

The emails also show Foreign Office also struggled with the weight of communications from MPs in the aftermath of the US President’s executive order.

One official complained of “yet another UQ (Urgent Question to be answered in Parliament)”, in reference to a question put by former SNP MP Stuart Donaldson requesting a statement on the impact on the ban on British citizens.

In addition, the emails revealed which journalists and public figures the FCO paid particular attention too,

Tweets from The Guardian’s Anushka Asthana and Alan Travis, Steve Hawkes of The Sun and Jack Blanchard, then of The Mirror, were circulated with Foreign Office updates.

–

Source: BBC

The post Emails reveal Foreign Office alarm at Trump travel ban appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

It means people without close family or business relationships in the US could be denied visas and barred entry.

Grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces are not considered to be “bona fide” relations.

The rules apply to people in Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, as well as all refugees.

Moments before the ban began at 20:00 Washington time (00:00 GMT), it emerged that the state of Hawaii had asked a federal judge for clarification.

It has in the past accused the US government of violating the Supreme Court’s instructions by improperly excluding people.

An official with the Department of Homeland Security said it expected “business as usual at ports of entry”, adding: “Our people are well prepared for this.”

Immigration rights activists and lawyers said they would be at hand at major US airports ready to help arrivals and ensure those with valid visas were allowed in.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court partially upheld the ban, lifting injunctions that had halted one of the president’s key policies.

The court ruled that people seeking visas to travel to the US from the six restricted countries, and all refugees, would have to prove a “bona fide relationship” to someone in the country.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a final decision on the ban in October.

Who can come in?

According to the new rules, for the next 90 days those from the six countries without a close relationship will not be able to enter the US.

IN – a parent, spouse, fiancé, child, son- or daughter-in-law, or sibling, including step- or half-siblings.

OUT – grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, in-laws, extended family and grandchildren.

Also exempt from the new rules are those with business or educational ties to the US.

However, the guidelines specifically state that the relationship must be formal, documented and not formed for the purpose of evading the order.

Those who already hold valid visas are not affected. Dual nationals who travel on their passport from the unaffected country will also be allowed entry.

The court also approved a 120-day ban on refugees entering the US, allowing the government to bar entry to refugee claimants who cannot prove the same ties to an American individual or entity.

–

Source: BBC

The post Trump travel ban comes into effect appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

US District Judge Derrick Watson cited “questionable evidence” in the government’s argument that the ban was a matter of national security.

President Trump described the ruling as “unprecedented judicial overreach”.

The order would have placed a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.

Mr Trump insists the move is to stop terrorists from entering the US but critics say it is discriminatory.

An earlier version of the order, issued in late January, sparked confusion and protests, and was blocked by a judge in Seattle.

Speaking at a rally in Nashville, Tennessee on Wednesday evening, Mr Trump said the ruling in Hawaii made the US “look weak”. He said he would take the case “as far as it needs to go” including to the Supreme Court, adding: “We’re going to win.”

Hawaii is one of several US states trying to stop the ban.

Lawyers had argued that the ban would violate the US constitution by discriminating against people on the grounds of their national origin.

The state also said the ban would harm tourism and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

–

Source: BBC

The post Trump travel ban: US judge blocks new executive order appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban.

Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation.

The new 90-day ban on citizens of six mostly Muslim nations is due to come into effect on Thursday but has sparked legal action in a number of states.

Lawyers in Washington state had asked Judge Robart to extend his decision on the first ban to cover the second.

But the judge cited procedural reasons for not doing so.

He said a complaint or a motion would have to be filed before he could rule.

The justice department had argued that since the initial travel order ban had been revoked, the judge’s first ruling could no longer apply. Those opposing that argument said the new travel ban had the same effect as the original.

In succeeding with the first ban, they argued the move was unconstitutional and damaging to businesses in Washington state.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Thursday that the administration believed the new order would withstand legal scrutiny.

Several states have launched legal challenges.

The first order, which Mr Trump signed in January, sparked mass protests as well as confusion at airports.

Critics maintain the revised travel ban still discriminates against Muslims. Trump supporters say the president is fulfilling his campaign promises to protect Americans.

What is different about the new order?
Citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, six countries on the original 27 January order, will once more be subject to a 90-day travel ban.

Iraq was taken off the banned list because its government boosted visa screening and data sharing, White House officials said.

The new directive says refugees already approved by the state department can enter the US. It also lifts an indefinite ban on all Syrian refugees.

Green Card holders (legal permanent residents of the US) from the named countries will not be affected.
The new order does not give priority to religious minorities, unlike the previous directive. Critics of the Trump administration had argued that this was an unlawful policy showing preference to Christian refugees.

–

Source: BBC

The post Trump travel ban: Judge declines to reinstate ruling appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Mr Trump told reporters on Air Force One that a “brand new order” could be issued as early as Monday or Tuesday.

It comes after an appeals court in San Francisco upheld a court ruling to suspend his original order.

It barred entry from citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries.

It is unclear what a new US immigration order might look like.

Mr Trump said that it would change “very little”, but he did not provide details of any new ban under consideration.

Despite his suggestion on Friday, Mr Trump’s administration may still pursue its case in the courts over the original order, which was halted a week ago by a Seattle judge.

“We’ll win that battle,” Mr Trump told reporters, adding: “The unfortunate part is it takes time. We’ll win that battle. But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.”

A unnamed judge from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Thursday upheld the stay on the original order, has called on all 25 judges of that court to vote on whether to hear the appeal again.

Technically known as an en banc review, a second hearing of the case would involve an 11-judge panel, rather than the three who initially heard the appeal.

Mr Trump’s travel ban, which was hastily unveiled at the end of his first week in office, caused chaos at US airports and sparked protests across the country.

On Thursday, the appeals court said the administration failed to offer “any evidence” to justify the ban, which the president said was necessary to keep the US safe from terror attacks.

However Mr Trump insisted that the executive order was crucial for national security and promised to take action “very rapidly” to introduce “additional security” steps in the wake of the court’s decision.

He spoke as Virginia state lawyers argued in court that his policy “resulted from animus toward Muslims”.

Their challenge focuses on the travel restrictions imposed by the ban, rather than the four-month suspension of refugee admissions.

But lawyers for the US government in Virginia wrote that “judicial second-guessing” amounted to “an impermissible intrusion” on Mr Trump’s constitutional authority.

The appeals court ruling means that visa holders from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can continue to enter the US, and refugees from around the world, who were also subject to a temporary ban, are no longer blocked either.

But the ruling does not affect one part of Mr Trump’s controversial executive order: a cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the current fiscal year, down from the ceiling of 110,000 established under his predecessor, Barack Obama.

–

Source: BBC

The post Donald Trump considers issuing new travel ban appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

In a series of tweet on Tuesday [January 31], John Mahama, who is also the immediate past Chairman of ECOWAS, a bloc under the AU, also congratulated Ghanaian, Ambassador Kwasi Quartey on his election as Vice Chairman of the AU.

Donald Trump last Friday signed an executive order barring citizens from seven Muslim countries; Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somali, Sudan and Syria from entering the United States for 90 days.

The order also placed a moratorium on refugees entering the country for a 120-day period.

Many world leaders have criticized his decision, describing the order as being divisive, illegal, insulting and discriminatory.

UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described the ban as “divisive and wrong,” while London Mayor Sadiq Khan said the move was “shameful and cruel.”

Their comments came two days after Prime Minister Theresa May, became the first foreign leader to officially meet with Trump.

African leaders are yet to be vocal on the matter, which some social commentators on the continent say has negative implications on Africans.

President John Mahama’s open condemnation of the development may spark a continental debate, and Africa’s official position on it since countries such as Sudan, Somalia and Libya are involved.

–

By: Jonas Nyabor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Trump’s travel ban regrettable – Mahama appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The dowry (or bride price), which is an amount a prospective groom pays to the brides family has become the source of sorrow for many would-be couples.

In some part of the power-plagued Upper West region of Ghana, a man may have to cough between 5000 and 30000 cowries plus about 4 to 12 cows as the bride price.

This situation has resulted in some would-be couples cohabiting without going through the normal traditional rites. Those who manage to pay the expensive dowries end up abusing their wives because of the perceived sense of ownership due to the payment of the bride price.

Should marriage be this expensive?

How can would-be couples live their dreams in such circumstances?

How can domestic violence be prevented due to this situation?

Should the payment of dowries be abolished?

Latif Mahama tells the story of the enslaved wives of Wa in this documentary.

The 97.3 Citi FM Hold My Hand Documentary Series is proudly sponsored by STAR GHANA.

The post Enslaved Wives of Wa: How the dowry is destroying marriages appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Most young Ghanaian women are pressured by their family, friends and the society at large to get married when they are in their late 20’s. The pressure usually leads to most of these women hastily getting into relationships that later do not necessarily make them happy.

Some parents and guardians go to the extent of encouraging their daughters to get married to force their lovers to marry them.

But is this the way to go? How does the society help young women build their capacities adequately before getting married?

This documentary, by Afua Kessewaa Akoto, tells the story of Priscilla, a young lady who is being pressured to get married, and other ladies who have gone through the same ordeal.

The 97.3 Citi FM Hold My Hand Documentary Series is proudly sponsored by STAR GHANA.

The post Priscilla Must Marry – Societal pressure on marriage appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Cape Coast is synonymous with educational excellence and boasts of some of the Senior High Schools in the country.

The standards of education has however fallen in the city due to students’ lack of interest in basic education.

Most students have reportedly abandoned school to engage in commercial activities.

The post Fallen standards of education -The CapeCoast Story appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Citi FM’s Kessewa Akoto explores why there is a rule of thumb in the Ghanaian society about getting married at a certain age.

The post Priscilla Must Marry- A citizen journalist’s documentary on early marriage appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.