New Travel Restrictions Replacing Trump’s Travel Ban

On September 24^th, the Trump administration released the latest list of countries facing restrictions to travel to the U.S., replacing provisions on the expired travel ban. The newest travel restrictions will go into effect October 18^th.

The latest travel restrictions covers 8 countries, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia from the original travel ban, and adding North Korea, Chad and Venezuela, while removing Sudan.

The new restrictions on travel vary by country. Venezuelan government officials and their immediate families are banned from entering the U.S, North Korean immigrants and non-immigrants are banned completely, and immigrants and non-immigrants from Chad on business or tourist visas are banned entry.

The countries on the list failed to meet a baseline of information sharing with the U.S. to avoid restrictions. Required information included identity verification for prospective travelers, access to criminal-history records, and risk assessments of travelers’ potential risk to public safety. The proposed changes encouraged a number of countries to make improvements by enhancing travel security and traveler documents to avoid being facing travel restrictions.

Sudan was removed from the list of banned countries for the travel ban after the U.S. government deemed Sudan’s level of information sharing appropriate. Warming ties between Washington and Khartoum have rankled Sudan human rights activists who warn that Sudan continues to maintain ties to terror groups. Sudan remains one of only three designated state sponsors of terrorism according to the U.S. State Department.

Iraq remained off the travel restriction list for the second time, despite having failed the baseline of information sharing. Iraq has kept a close relationship with the U.S. especially in respects to fighting the Islamic State, but its close ties to Iran and its reliance on Iranian-backed Shia militias with ties to Hezbollah raise concerns.

Immigration advocates have continued to oppose travel restrictions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched a new campaign to protest the new ban, which they argue remains a religiously-motivated ban against Muslims despite the inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela because the U.S. has rarely had North Korean visitors, and the ban on Venezuela is only focused on the country’s leaders. This argument doesn’t account for the removal of Iraq and Sudan from the list, both of which are Muslim-majority countries.

The Venezuelan government has also protested, claiming that the restrictions put on its officials is a form of political terrorism and while the country hasn’t said how it will respond to the U.S., it plans on doing everything necessary to protect national interests and sovereignty in the country. The Venezuelan government has a long history of providing passports and other government documents to terrorist groups, including Hezbollah.

President Trump signed an executive order on January 27^th, which banned citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen entry to the U.S. for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. The executive order was signed in an attempt to stop individuals with terrorist ties from entering the United States.

Shortly after the executive order was passed, it was blocked by judges from New York and Massachusetts for being unconstitutional. On February 3^rd, a federal judge blocked the travel ban nationwide stating the ban adversely affected residents in areas of education, employment, education and freedom to travel. The U.S. government attempted to appeal the court decision and request to resume the ban but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against reinstating the ban. In March, the Trump administration appealed the Ninth Circuit Court ruling.

The Trump administration released a new travel ban on March 6^th, which removed Iraq from the list of countries and exempted citizens of the countries who are legal U.S. residents or who already had valid visas. This ban was also blocked by judges in Hawaii and Maryland, shortly before it was supposed to take effect. Judge Watson from Hawaii claimed that the new executive order failed to pass legal muster and claimed religious discrimination.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a limited version of the ban while the justices examine its legality. The Supreme Court allowed the U.S. government to deny entry to citizens from the designated countries who lacked a preexisting relationship with a person or entity in the United States, but would prohibit groups from attempt to create such conditions solely for the purpose of circumventing the travel ban.

The Supreme Court had scheduled arguments for October 10^th to decide whether the original travel ban is legal, but the arguments have been cancelled due to the recent travel restrictions. The justices may reschedule the arguments but those arguments would likely focus on whether there is still a live debate before the Supreme Court or whether it should be sent back down to the lower courts.

The latest proclamation will likely be harder for its opponents to fight in court because it is based on a case by case examination of each country’s government’s cooperation with U.S. of U.S. screening and security policies.