Former President Donald Trump has reintroduced a travel ban targeting 12 countries, resembling elements of his first term's controversial policy but with key adjustments aimed at greater legal viability. Unlike the earlier “Muslim ban” that faced numerous legal battles, this new order appears crafted to circumvent similar challenges by outlining clearly defined exemptions and avoiding overt discrimination based on religion.
Experts note that the latest restrictions are strategically broader and more coherent. Christi Jackson of Laura Devine Immigration observed that this new iteration displays "a wider scope" with "clearly defined" exemptions designed to fortify its legal standing. Unlike its 2017 predecessor, which name-dropped several Muslim-majority nations, the current list does not target such countries directly.
Legal analysts speculate this ban might withstand scrutiny from the Supreme Court if contested. Barbara McQuade, a legal scholar offering insights on the BBC World Service’s Newshour, asserts that the absence of express targeting of Muslim states elevates the likelihood of judicial approval.
The countries affected by the new ban, effective from June 9, include Afghanistan, Iran, and Somalia, while another seven countries face partial restrictions. Notably, Trump emphasized the severity of perceived threats, including terrorism and visa overstaying rates, as justifications for these restrictions. However, immigration attorney Steven D Heller raised concerns about unclear criteria determining which nations were placed on the ban list, potentially paving the way for legal challenges.
The new order lacks an expiration date, marking a significant departure from the earlier policy, which was time-limited to 90-120 days. Countries affected have reacted with dismay, exemplified by Venezuela's strong condemnation, labelling the Trump administration "supremacists," while Somalia has expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue.
Critics also highlight the implications for various visa applicants—students caught in limbo, diversity visa lottery winners, and even wealthy investors—will likely face intensified barriers. Shabnam Lotfi, an immigration lawyer who fought against the original ban, voiced concerns about the strategic wording of the new order making it more complex for wide legal opposition. Despite potential implications for individuals hoping to enter the United States, she acknowledges the president’s authority to set immigration policies, complicating challenges to this latest ban.
