The latest travel ban issued by Trump targets 12 countries and aims to avoid past legal issues while avoiding explicit discrimination.
Trump's Revised Travel Ban Skirts Past Legal Challenges, Experts Say
Trump's Revised Travel Ban Skirts Past Legal Challenges, Experts Say
New travel restrictions reflect lessons learned from earlier ban's failures.
Trump has announced a new travel ban affecting citizens from 12 countries, echoing a controversial policy from his earlier presidency. Notably, this updated ban seems to have been structured to circumvent the legal setbacks that plagued the original travel ban instituted shortly after he took office in January 2017.
In stark contrast to his first attempt which faced intense legal scrutiny and was labeled the "Muslim ban," this new version features more carefully defined exemptions and wider restrictions. Legal analysts have pointed out that the Trump administration has learned from previous mistakes, with experts noting improvements in legal clarity and scope.
The prior ban, which specifically targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries, underwent multiple revisions after being deemed unconstitutional due to its perceived discriminatory nature. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld a scaled-back version in 2018, a framework upon which Trump's latest restrictions appear to be modeled.
Christi Jackson, an immigration law expert, emphasized that the new travel ban is more solid legally and less vague than its predecessor. Among the 12 targeted nations, which include notably Afghanistan and Iran, proponents of the ban argue that the regulations are based on the perceived risk of terrorism and high visa-overstay rates, drawing mixed reactions from the affected areas.
Critics are concerned, however, about the legality of citing visa overstay statistics without establishing a clear threshold. Legal experts warn this could lead to potential legal challenges against the ban, though Trump’s authority over immigration policy grants him substantial leeway.
Unlike the first ban, which was set to expire after a few months, this new policy lacks a defined end date and has already generated backlash from various countries. Venezuela condemned the ban with strong words against the Trump administration, while Somalia expressed a willingness to discuss the matter further.
Legal professionals like Shabnam Lotfi, who previously contested the earlier prohibitions, predict a daunting task for plaintiffs seeking to challenge this updated ban due to its more carefully constructed language. The implications of the new restrictions could have a widespread impact on various groups, including international students and skilled workers from the affected nations, many of whom find themselves in uncertain situations regarding their visas and future in the US.
In stark contrast to his first attempt which faced intense legal scrutiny and was labeled the "Muslim ban," this new version features more carefully defined exemptions and wider restrictions. Legal analysts have pointed out that the Trump administration has learned from previous mistakes, with experts noting improvements in legal clarity and scope.
The prior ban, which specifically targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries, underwent multiple revisions after being deemed unconstitutional due to its perceived discriminatory nature. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld a scaled-back version in 2018, a framework upon which Trump's latest restrictions appear to be modeled.
Christi Jackson, an immigration law expert, emphasized that the new travel ban is more solid legally and less vague than its predecessor. Among the 12 targeted nations, which include notably Afghanistan and Iran, proponents of the ban argue that the regulations are based on the perceived risk of terrorism and high visa-overstay rates, drawing mixed reactions from the affected areas.
Critics are concerned, however, about the legality of citing visa overstay statistics without establishing a clear threshold. Legal experts warn this could lead to potential legal challenges against the ban, though Trump’s authority over immigration policy grants him substantial leeway.
Unlike the first ban, which was set to expire after a few months, this new policy lacks a defined end date and has already generated backlash from various countries. Venezuela condemned the ban with strong words against the Trump administration, while Somalia expressed a willingness to discuss the matter further.
Legal professionals like Shabnam Lotfi, who previously contested the earlier prohibitions, predict a daunting task for plaintiffs seeking to challenge this updated ban due to its more carefully constructed language. The implications of the new restrictions could have a widespread impact on various groups, including international students and skilled workers from the affected nations, many of whom find themselves in uncertain situations regarding their visas and future in the US.
