Within a few days of taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump has been conducting a comprehensive ban on entry from the majority of Muslims. It encountered a fierce pushback, the protest of the masses, and a series of defeats in court.
This time, Trump has not carried out travel ban, despite the signing of the first barrage of the presidential order. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't come. According to experts, one of his first administrative orders on the first day has taken the first step toward a new ban.
The order will be found to the members of the Trump Cabinet to report within 60 days in a country with the “insufficient” examination and screening procedure of the traveler's “inadequate” examination and screening procedure. It is not clear exactly what kind of punishment of citizens of those countries faces. However, this order has revealed the possibility of “partially or complete” ban on entering the United States, which could exceed previous restrictions.
Experts say that such orders can potentially use not only to prevent future arrivals, but also for expulsion of those who have issued a visa in the past four years. It can also include not only the country of origin, but also the rules that can target those people based on political beliefs. The White House did not respond to the request for comments on Trump's plan.
Experts say that Trump's slower approach to carry out potential travel ban is based on avoiding the loss of the collapsed court in 2017. This time, Trump has become more cautious about his legal strategy, and is gathering evidence that can be used as a justification of future travel ban, rather than announcing it immediately.
In his first term, Trump announced the ban without specifying the reason why the target country raised national security concerns and did not clarify the review process that could cancel the ban. Stephen Yale Lower, a professor in the Immigration Law of Cornell Row School and the author of the Immigration Law, said Steven Yale Lower, a professor of the Immigration Law at Cornell Law School.
“I think they learned from their mistakes in the first administration. If they want to ban travel, they will set things so that they are likely to be supported by court.”
What does the new travel ban look like?
Trump's first trip, which was enacted in January 2017, is a traveler who has focused on the majority of seven Muslim countries, including the Green Card owner. The ban was driven in court to discriminate Muslims.
The Trump administration later excluded the Green Card owner, added North Korea and a specific Venezuela officials to those who were banned, and revised two further prohibitions. The third version was supported by the Supreme Court in 2018, remaining until 2021, when the former President Joe Biden was appointed.
The framework that Trump is laid out with his new presidential order is trying to expand it. Although no specific country has been named, at least, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan had already been banned from traveling in Trump's first term, but those countries are in the United States. We expect that it may be targeted because it is not shared. In addition to the future arrival from these countries, it may be applied to people who have a temporary visa in the past four years and do not have a permanent position in the United States as a green card owner or citizen. there is. Trump's presidential ordinance has already announced the possibility that the United States will be expelled abroad.
According to CésarcuauhtémocGarcíahernádez, he is a professor at Ohio State University Faculty of Law and some books on the execution in the United States. Welcome miserable peopleThe early President of Trump, “It looks like it has set up a long -term surveillance stage of immigrants.” [with deficient vetting] It has been recognized as to have entered the United States since January 20, 2021. “
If such people are included in potential prohibitions, it may be the basis for legal challenge: Garcia Ernandez, “The immigrant is a type of crime that leads to the immigration or expulsion of abroad. Unless you are convicted, you are allowed to stay legally, as long as you are not hospitalized in the national immigrant.
In addition to the screening requirements, Trump's recent presidential orders include the US citizens, culture, government, government, system, and established principles, or “specified assistance, assistance, or”. He says that he should not accept travelers to support support. Other threats to foreign terrorists and our national security. ”
It is unknown what it actually means. However, Trump has promised the trajectory of a campaign to impose Palestinians from Gaza, and to impose Marxists, socialists, and communists from entering the United States. In relation, he signed an administrative order on Wednesday and expelled non -citizens who participated in Palestine's parent protests last spring.
“People who come to enjoy our country must love our country,” said Trump in June.
This may include a new type of ideology screening in the visa application process. This may start to target people based on political beliefs, beyond the screening of crime or terrorism.
Aved Ayubu, an Arab -American defender and Arab's advocacy committee, who accused the Israelian war in Gaza, told Vox that it has already issued an alarm.
“The language that stands out is a language related to the elimination of ideology,” AYOUB said. Their ideologies are considered not consistent with the Trump administration, or are considered non -Americans. “
The president has a wide range of authority to issue a travel ban
However, even a much more severe travel ban may fit in Trump's authority. Federal Law gives Trump an important margin to implement travel restrictions.
Specifically, Trump's presidential ordinance calls authorities under the Immigration Law in 1952, so the president “stops” a specific non -citizen and its existence is “harmful. You can limit your entry as much as you want.
This is a drastic authority that has been used on a daily basis by President other than Trump. For example, Biden used it to block non -citizens in Balkan who decided to “rot”.
But the authorities do not mean that there are no restrictions. Other aspects of the Federal Immigration Law, such as the right to seek exile in the United States, cannot be disabled. There is also an unresolved legal debate on whether or not to call authorities to cope with the existence of non -citizens, such as the cost of taxpayers and high losses.
Depending on the accurate language of future travel ban, they may be an area where immigrants can take root in legal issues. However, such issues may not be successful in this Supreme Court.
“I think immigrants will try to find a friendly court to challenge new travel ban. If it is like a trip to the Supreme Court in 2018, the Supreme Court will also support this trip.
