On Monday, President Donald Trump signed the new and more tapered temporary travel ban which will be more difficult to defy in the court, according to legal experts.
Iraq, which was among the previously included seven nation order, has been removed from the new list post an agreement to additional visa vetting security measures.
Trump’s primary executive order on travel ban that was signed on January 27, banned travellers from a total of seven Muslim-majority nations, i.e., Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen, for 90 days and paused refugee admission for four months, and also barring Syrian refugees indefinitely. The order’s sudden implementation created a wreck and chaos and protests at several airports. Also, the order had hit along with more than two dozen lawsuits, many that alleged it discriminated against Muslim.
This new ban directive, which also includes a 120 day ban on all the refugees, will be with effect from 16th March. The earlier order that was obstructed by the federal court, erupted confusion at airports and mass protest.
The ban order enlists groups of people who could be potentially eligible for waivers, including travellers who have earlier admitted to the US for school or work, those looking to live or visit along with a close relative; children, and adoptees or people in need of medical care, employees of the U.S. government and foreign organizations among others.
All of these exceptions, make the new order ‘a lot harder to counter,’ according to Andrew Greenfield, an immigration attorney with Fragomen law firm in Washington D.C.
Trump had assured to make the directive law tough to counter in the court and many of the alterations were expected.
A Cornell Law School professor who specializes in immigration, Stephen Yale-Loehr said, "They dotted their 'i's' and crossed their 't's' in trying to anticipate what litigation might result." He also said that opponents may yet be able to find plaintiffs, a United States citizen could possibly sue if the government denies a waiver to their foreign spouse for an illogical reason.
The Attorney General for Washington State, Bob Ferguson on Monday said that he will possibly decide on the next lawsuit steps this week post consultation with state universities and businesses pertaining to potential harms.
Ferguson said, "We need to do our homework and be thoughtful about this.”
Also, the United States Department of Justice, in Seattle federal court on Monday said that the new directive implies, "only to those who are overseas and without a visa."
International citizens living outside the country and do not have a U.S. visa do not have the similar protections under the U.S. Constitution as people already here, according to legal experts.
The director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, Rosemary Jenks, a groups which favours less immigration overall, stated that the new directive will leave the state of Washington having to argue on behalf of unidentified foreign nationals who have not been screened, vetted or processed up till now by the United States authorities.
Jenks said, "That would be a pretty big stretch," and being not similar to the older directive, the new has more in-depth detail whether why the specific countries were selected.
Lawyers, who are challenging the ban, include the American Civil Liberties Union mentioned there were yet queries pertaining to whether or not the ban is vindicated by national security reasons and the revisions do not address concerns which the order discriminates depending upon the religion.
Chief Counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Stephen Legomsky in the earlier Obama administration specified to statements by Trump wanting a Muslim ban.
Legomsky said, "That evidence is baked in, you can't change the past," nevertheless, that does not indicate the legal barriers will eventually be successful in the likelihood that they reach the U.S. Supreme Court, "It's not a slam dunk."