Executive Order 13769: The Travel Ban
Also known as Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, this Executive Order was originally enacted by President Trump in January and since then has evolved to make it through the judicial system and be cleared by the checks and balances system that protects U.S. democracy.
The original travel ban was enacted on January 27th, 2017. For the full White House release, click here. The ban was considered a part of an “extreme vetting plan” to keep out radical Islamic terrorists. It ordered a 90-day suspension for immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen and says that priority will be given to minorities in these countries facing persecution. This ban was touted a “Muslim Ban” because it suspended refugee entrance for 120 days (specifically looking towards Syria) and banned entry from Muslim-majority countries unless they are minorities being persecuted (heavily implying Christian preference). It was received negatively, and resulted in many massive protests in airports. A week after the ban went into effect, a federal judge order a freeze on the policy and airlines began allowing travelers from the banned countries to fly to the U.S. The argument behind the freeze was that the U.S. is a tri-part government and thus the Courts had to do its due diligence in its constitutional role.
March 6th, 2017 the White House released a revised executive order. For the full White House release, click here. President Trump signed a new executive order in March that greatly resembled the first travel ban, but included only six Muslim-majority countries, having taken Iraq off the list because it received much criticism from the U.S.’s kind of ally. March 8th was the first day that the revised order was challenged by a District Judge in Hawaii, claiming that the ban was discriminatory against Muslims. The judge used Trump’s own comments to argue that it was not a travel ban but a Muslim ban and thus discriminatory and unconstitutional.
On June 26th, 2017 the Supreme Court decided to allow parts of the revised Travel Ban to go into effect until it has a chance to fully review it in October. The biggest takeaway from this is that people can still have their visas revoked if they have never been to the U.S. before or lacked a relation to an American entity. The decision for the Supreme Court to take up reviewing the ban sets up a battle between the president’s power to rule over national security and the need to protect individuals based on religious observation. International groups are saying that even this narrow acceptance of the ban has the power to effect security-cleared refugees and also can tear families apart.
The travel ban has received some flak because it seems to provide preference to other Muslim-majority countries. The intended purpose of the ban is to prevent terrorists from entering the U.S. and supposedly does so by stalling the entrance of visitors from countries that previous terrorist attacks had origins in. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates were countries of origin for the 9/11 hijackers, but for some reason were not included in the travel ban. The seven countries included in the travel ban do not have a history of business with the Trump Organization, whereas the countries with ties to 9/11 all have ties to the Trump Organization. Seems a little suspicious.
On the other hand, the countries identified in the ban were highlighted by the Obama Administration and Department of Homeland Security as posing national security risks via visa programs, so the basis of the ban was not merely concocted by the Trump Administration. If President Trump really wants to ensure American safety from terrorist attacks, though, he will need to address the hypocrisy of American allies, like Saudi Arabia, in their role in terrorist attacks on American soil.
