President Donald Trump issued a revised executive order on
March 6, placing U.S. travel immigration restrictions on Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Syria and Yemen. The current order revokes and replaces the
order issued Jan. 27 that faced legal challenges in courts across the country
and was halted nationwide by an emergency restraining order issued Feb. 3 by
Washington State Federal District Judge James Robart, whose decision was then upheld
on Feb. 9 by San Francisco’s Ninth District Court, after an emergency appeal by
the Department of Justice.
The revised executive order dropped Iraq from the list of
countries affected by the restrictions, citing "the close cooperative
relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi
government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the
significant presence of United States forces in Iraq and Iraq's commitment to
combat ISIS" as justification for treating the country as a special case,
despite its presence on a list of countries identified by the Obama administration
as "presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the
United States."
The new order also revised timelines for implementation and
the duration of what has become known as Trump's "travel ban." The
order is scheduled to take effect March 16, at which time nationals of the six
affected countries will be denied entry to the U.S. for 90 days. Also on March 16, decisions
on all refugee applications, including Syria, will be suspended for 120 days. The previous order suspended Syrian refugees indefinitely.
The original order
automatically revoked as many as 60,000 valid travel visas. The revised order
reinstates those visas and confirms that visas issued between Feb. 3 and Mar.
15 will be valid for entry to the U.S. It also confirms that the order does not
apply to green card holders or to individuals with temporary
student or work visas.
The absence of these carve-outs within the original
executive order was of critical concern in the suit filed in Washington's
federal district court by the states of Washington and Minnesota, particularly in
terms of reduced business travel and uncertainty around temporary work visas, as
well as research and student travel associated with state universities.
The new executive order may not alleviate uncertainty
for international business or leisure travelers. On Sunday, U.S. Travel Association
president Roger Dow urged the administration to include in the new
order "language making clear that the U.S. welcomes and values
legitimate international business and leisure travelers." Dow's statements cited mounting signs of a broad chilling effect on
demand for international travel to the U.S. and that a failure to
welcome international travelers would "double-down on doubts, discontent and division that risk
significant economic harm."
Reacting to the revised order on Monday, Dow said, "Unfortunately, it
doesn't appear that the administration fully seized the opportunity to
differentiate between the potential security risks targeted by the order and
the legitimate business and leisure visitors from abroad who support 15.1
million American jobs."
Global
Business Travel Association executive director Mike McCormick praised the
narrowed scope of the revised order but said, "Any
increased restrictions on passenger travel must be based in safety and security
to ensure that the ability to travel is not impeded unnecessarily. It will
remain a focus of the business travel industry to hold disruptions to a
minimum, and we will continue to monitor the implementation of this ban
closely."
Broader constitutionality issues remain in play, as well.
Civil liberties organizations and other groups maintain that the restrictions
have been levied against majority-Muslim countries despite the fact that individuals
from these countries have not perpetrated a terrorist act on the U.S. since 2001. As a result, they say the executive order still constitutes a
veiled Muslim ban and is likely to face similar legal challenges to the Jan. 27
version. The revised order provided additional explanation on this
count, citing terrorism-related arrests since 2001 of "hundreds of persons
born abroad" and the more than 300 open counterterrorism-related
investigations of people who entered the U.S. as refugees. The order
did not explicitly cite whether any current investigations are
associated with nationals from countries affected by the revised travel
restrictions.
Legal experts have said the revised order will
be more difficult to challenge in court. The ACLU expects to file a suit on
Tuesday.