Trump’s travel restriction order, revisited
In FRAY’s first issue, we discussed President Trump’s Jan. 27 Executive Order (EO) restricting travel and immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries (See the full FRAY email here). But on Mar. 6, the Trump administration declared a do-over with a revised EO that narrowed the scope of those affected. Today, we give our FRAY 001 opinion writers a chance to respond to the new EO.
The Facts:
- On Mar. 6, 2017, President Trump signed a new EO replacing the Jan. 27 ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries (White House). The updated policy takes effect on Mar. 16, 2017.
- This revised EO restricts new visas for travelers from six countries instead of seven, removing Iraq from the previous list in an effort to promote unity in defeating the Islamic State after the Iraqi government agreed to participate in more thorough screenings (DHS). Since 2006, over 650,000 people from these six countries have entered the United States as temporary residents (Pew Research Center).
- It maintains the retraction of America’s refugee program for 120 days and the reduction of the number of refugees permitted each year from 110,000 to 50,000 (New York Times, Pew Research Center).
- The additional restrictions on Syrian refugees and the priority previously placed on persecuted religious minorities were also removed (NBC News). White House staff stressed that this policy does not target a specific religion (CNN).
- Several of the key policy changes appease the 9th circuit ruling that blocked the previous order, including an exemption of current visa holders and a waiver process for those affected (Washington Post).
- Reactions vary on the updated EO. Democratic lawmakers and the ACLU still classify it as a “Muslim ban” (Time, ACLU). Meanwhile, tech companies are less adversarial to the revised EO due to new protections for current visa holders, who make up a large percentage of workers in Silicon Valley (Forbes). On the other hand, Jayson Ahern, former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, says the EO is a “very prudent action” and Speaker Ryan continues to support the EO because it “advances the shared goal” to protect the U.S. (NPR, AP).
CONSERVATIVE OPINION
In FRAY 001, I argued in favor of President Trump’s EO but said it could go further to prevent terror. There’s nothing in this new version of the EO that changes that position. It is a sensible action in preventing terrorism to temporarily block entry from concerning countries until the vetting processes are reviewed. It’s more sensible, at least, than other efforts we’ve instituted for the same end goal such as the TSA, DHS, and the Patriot Act.
PROGRESSIVE OPINION
by Alexis Cole
President Trump’s first Muslim ban faced swift legal backlash and mass public protest. With federal courts blocking the order, the administration retreated, revoking the original and signing a new order. Multiple states have already brought legal challenges, and the order has been blocked as applied to one Syrian family. While savvy drafting scrubs some of the most egregious provisions, it amounts to nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0.
Curing some constitutional problems of the first ban fails to solve the problem when the core intent, and effect, of the order violates the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from disfavoring one religion over others. Removing the preference for “religious minorities” (read: Christians), does not resolve the Establishment Clause violation. Trump cannot backtrack from his campaign promise (supported by others) calling for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. Muslim Ban 2.0 is just as unconstitutional as Muslim Ban 1.0.
At FRAY, we do this twice a week, covering a new current event topic each Monday and Wednesday. Right now, every Monday issue covers the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. If you’ve got questions about the AHCA, ask them here. Sign up below to get FRAY in your inbox bright and early.
