In a controversial move, US President Donald Trump has unveiled a revamped travel ban affecting citizens from 12 countries, echoing a significant policy from his first administration. Unlike 2017’s travel ban, which faced substantial pushback and legal hurdles, this new version aims to navigate previous pitfalls, as pointed out by legal experts.
The initial travel ban, often labeled the "Muslim ban," triggered protests nationwide and underwent numerous revisions before the US Supreme Court upheld a more limited version in 2018. According to Christi Jackson, an immigration law specialist, the new restrictions show improvements with clearer definitions and broader scopes.
The latest ban does retain some of the same nations as its predecessor, including Afghanistan and Iran, but it consciously avoids targeting Muslim-majority countries as its primary focus. Experts like Barbara McQuade suggest that this shift could enhance its chances of surviving judicial scrutiny if contested.
Starting June 9, the ban also imposes partial restrictions on seven additional countries. Trump justified the measures based on a perceived threat from these regions, despite many not being officially designated as state sponsors of terrorism.
However, concerns remain about the ambiguity surrounding criteria for certain restrictions, specifically related to rates of visa overstays. Legal experts warn that without clear definitions, the administration may face legal challenges.
Unlike the original ban's temporary nature, this order currently lacks an expiration date, raising alarms in the countries affected. Dismay echoed from places like Venezuela, while Somalia expressed willingness to discuss the implications. The earlier ban ignited chaos at airports, an outcome anticipated to rise again as the new rules affect not just tourists but also students and professionals waiting for approvals.
Immigration attorney Shabnam Lotfi noted that despite the challenges in reversing this policy, the president holds significant power over immigration matters, complicating chances for collective legal actions against the new ban. The consequences loom large for those in the visa lottery and other applicants, indicating potential disruptions in future US immigration patterns.
The initial travel ban, often labeled the "Muslim ban," triggered protests nationwide and underwent numerous revisions before the US Supreme Court upheld a more limited version in 2018. According to Christi Jackson, an immigration law specialist, the new restrictions show improvements with clearer definitions and broader scopes.
The latest ban does retain some of the same nations as its predecessor, including Afghanistan and Iran, but it consciously avoids targeting Muslim-majority countries as its primary focus. Experts like Barbara McQuade suggest that this shift could enhance its chances of surviving judicial scrutiny if contested.
Starting June 9, the ban also imposes partial restrictions on seven additional countries. Trump justified the measures based on a perceived threat from these regions, despite many not being officially designated as state sponsors of terrorism.
However, concerns remain about the ambiguity surrounding criteria for certain restrictions, specifically related to rates of visa overstays. Legal experts warn that without clear definitions, the administration may face legal challenges.
Unlike the original ban's temporary nature, this order currently lacks an expiration date, raising alarms in the countries affected. Dismay echoed from places like Venezuela, while Somalia expressed willingness to discuss the implications. The earlier ban ignited chaos at airports, an outcome anticipated to rise again as the new rules affect not just tourists but also students and professionals waiting for approvals.
Immigration attorney Shabnam Lotfi noted that despite the challenges in reversing this policy, the president holds significant power over immigration matters, complicating chances for collective legal actions against the new ban. The consequences loom large for those in the visa lottery and other applicants, indicating potential disruptions in future US immigration patterns.
