Trump’s new travel ban still divisive

US President Donald Trump issued a revised order restricting people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering United States. The new directive, which is effective from March 16, excludes Iraq and allows those having current US visa to travel freely. Like the previous order issued on January 27, the new one bans all refugees for 120 days, but Syrian refugees are no longer barred indefinitely. It also exempts people who acquired permits to travel US on or after the date of the order; those granted asylum before the effective date of the order; and people who are in US legally and pursuing studies or work.
The first order triggered chaos at airports and border crossings as hundreds of immigrants and travellers were detained or delayed in being admitted to the country. Defense Secretary James Mattis objected to including Iraq on the list of countries covered by the ban. Mattis argued it would hinder joint efforts by the US and Iraqi forces to combat IS.
First travel order led to the deluge of protests across the world. Corporates, international allies and human rights activists blasted the ban and judges quickly blocked it, forcing the administration into retreat.
Unlike the first one which was much hyped, Trump issued the new order in private and made no public statement of his own, not even a tweet. The changes imply an acknowledgment by the White House that the first order, hastily implemented at the end of Trump’s first week in office, was flawed, vulnerable to lawsuits and disruptive to thousands of travellers.
Though Trump has said that urgent national security concern necessitated travel ban measures and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that the president is exercising his rightful authority to make Americans safe, Trump’s latest attempt to control entry to the country remains a disguised ban on Muslims. The Trump administration is vehemently defending the new order, as it did the old one, by pointing to the president’s broad authority to suspend any class of aliens whose entry would be a security threat to United States and its people. The White House has maintained that it believes the court erred in its ruling and argued the president would prevail if the issue was fully litigated.
Even the first order didn’t mention explicitly Muslims or Islam in singling out citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen for a 90-day ban. Still judges blocked the first one.
Lawyers challenging the initial order claimed it was intended to target Muslims in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from favouring one religion over another, and the Equal Protection Clause, which prevents discrimination against people based on their religion.
Although Trump administration eliminated certain problems and tried making the new order insulated to legal challenges, but it has still failed to address the core constitutional problem, which is religious discrimination.
And so the new travel ban is certain to trigger a fresh round of legal challenges, risking another blow to the administration’s prestige. Though the administration fleshed out detail, including a rationale for the travel ban and guidance for travellers who might be affected, it’s unclear if the new order will pass legal muster. The new order is still prone to litigation from people including US citizens whose loved ones are blocked from traveling to United States. The revised order is
still divisive.