A Fresh Take on Trump's Travel Restrictions: Examining the New Order and Its Implications
Revised Trump Travel Ban Maintains Legal Stronghold, Assert Experts
Tammy Bruce, a State Department spokesperson, recently spoke to 'America's Newsroom' about President Donald Trump's travel restrictions, including the new ban on foreign students at Harvard, and shared her perspective on these measures as "commonsense restrictions."
President Trump's latest travel order, targeting 19 countries, might face legal challenges from immigration advocates, but they might not emerge victorious. Attorney Neama Rahmani, a California-based former federal prosecutor specializing in immigration, predicts their defeat due to the order's enhanced legal grounding compared to the 2017 ban.
*TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY*
The new travel ban expands on Trump's previous policy imposed during his first term, which saw bans on seven Muslim-majority countries. The difference this time lies in the inclusion of "all sorts of countries" to prevent allegations of religious discrimination, as criticized in the 2017 ban. Some of the countries included in the new order are Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, Venezuela, Eritrea, and Burundi, among others.
Rahmani highlights the Supreme Court as being more supportive of the Trump administration this time around, with a different composition compared to when the 2017 ban was challenged.
Although the Supreme Court generally grants presidents generous leeway with regards to foreign policy and national security, in the 2017 case, the dissenting justices argued that the ban was driven by religious animus disguised as national security. This time, Trump's restrictions are justified by the need to prevent terrorist attacks and address public safety concerns, as some of the countries have inadequate screening and vetting processes or high rates of visa overstays.
*DEMOCRATS AND IMMIGRATION RIGHTS CRITICS REACT TO THE BAN*
Democrat lawmakers and immigration rights advocates have accused Trump's travel restrictions of being rooted in bigotry, as they allegedly target people based on their nationality or religious beliefs. However, attorney Ilya Somin, who is challenging Trump's sweeping tariffs, argues that it would be difficult to contest this new travel ban on the grounds of bigotry due to the Supreme Court's previous ruling in Trump v. Hawaii.
Instead, Somin suggests potential challenges on different grounds, such as the nondelegation doctrine, which sets limits on how much power Congress can transfer to the executive branch, potentially questioning the president's lack of congressional oversight in implementing travel restrictions.
However, Somin acknowledges that this travel ban poses a higher legal hurdle compared to the tariffs case, given the unclear constitutional jurisdiction over immigration restrictions.
In the political landscape, the new travel restrictions implemented by President Trump, including the ban on foreign students at Harvard, are being viewed as commonsense restrictions, yet they have sparked controversy in the realm of policy-and-legislation, with immigration advocates and general-news media questioning their legality.
The evolving legal battle surrounding the travel order focuses on the Supreme Court's stance, with some predicting victory for the Trump administration due to its enhanced legal grounding compared to the 2017 ban, which was challenged on alleged religious discrimination. The criticism this time targets the need to prevent terrorist attacks and address public safety concerns, as some of the countries included have inadequate screening and vetting processes or high rates of visa overstays.
