President Trump’s new travel moratorium is designed to avoid the successful legal challenge that scuttled his previous ban. But will it, too, prove vulnerable?
The new order is a 90-day ban on travelers from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. Iraq was in the first order blocked by federal courts but has now been dropped. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said this was because the State Department and Iraq were working together to implement updated security measures to prevent Iraqi citizens with terroristic or criminal intent from entering the country. Legal permanent residents, green card holders, are exempt under the new order, as are current visa holders, and refugees from anywhere in the world, not just Syria, will be banned for 120-days. The ban will be enacted in ten days.
The Administration argued that the last ban needed to be implemented immediately so those planning harm wouldn't accelerate plans to enter the U.S. -- are there concerns now that this ten day period before implementation could be exploited? And for those looking to challenge the new ban, what might be constitutionally vulnerable?
Alan Gomez, USA Today reporter covering immigration; he tweets @alangomez
James R. Copland, a senior fellow and director of Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute
Ahilan Arulanantham, legal director and director of advocacy at the ACLU of Southern California