The American Council of Immigration does not approve or oppose candidates for elected offices. We aim to provide an analysis of the impact of elections on the US immigration system.
Eight years ago, President Trump made history by invoking the ambiguous authority of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to “stop” the “entering” of the citizens of multiple Muslim majority countries. After the ban on two versions was first discontinued in court, the Supreme Court remained in effect until President Biden ended it in 2021. Today, President Trump’s travel ban has never been stronger, affecting 19 countries, allowing 125,000 people to potentially come to the United States each year.
How does Trump’s new travel ban differ from a “Muslim ban”?
The first travel ban, known as the “Muslim ban,” imposed visa restrictions on the range of severity, ranging from a complete ban on all non-immigrant and immigrant visas in some countries to lesser limits on visas in some countries. For example, the version of the ban, upheld by the Supreme Court, banned only all visas for Chadian citizens, all non-immigrant visas for North Korean citizens, and tourist visas for certain Venezuelan government officials and their families.
The new restrictions introduced are much cleaned up than Trump’s first travel ban. The following 12 countries are subject to a total visa ban:
AfghanistanBirmachadCongoEquatorial GuineaEritreaHaitiIranLibyaSomaliaSudanYemen
Meanwhile, these seven countries are targeting the ban on all immigrant visas and all tourist, student and exchange visitor visas (B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas).
Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra, Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela
Like the previous travel ban, there are a few exceptions. The ban does not apply to anyone with a current green card or a current valid visa. People who are direct relatives of US citizens (spouses, children under the age of 21, parents). and refugees; individuals granted humanitarian protection. In particular, Trump has also suspended US refugee enrollment programs indefinitely, making that last exception of the programme particularly useless.
Diplomats and NATO staff are also exempted. Double citizens traveling with passports in countries that are not prohibited. A child adopted overseas. Afghans seeking special immigrant visas for their work to support our military. Ethnic or religious minority in Iran that escaped persecution. Athletes, coaches, support staff and immediate athletes participating in “major sporting events” such as the World Cup and the Olympics. And an individual whose entry is deemed to be in “national interest.”
Of the 19 countries targeted the latest ban, only nine targeted the first ban set. One of these countries, Chad was actually removed from the first ban set in April 2018 after determining that Chad had addressed a review issue that justified the ban on visas. The new countries include several countries with large immigrant groups in the United States, including Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela.
These three countries in particular have been attacked by the Trump administration in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security’s NOEM Bureau ending humanitarian parole programs for the citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, and temporary protections in Venezuela, Cameroon, Afghanistan, Nepal and Haiti.
A federal judge previously declared that the termination of Venezuela’s TP was motivated by Animus, and the new declaration has selected Haitian immigrants, particularly as a reason for the ban. Most of the Haitian immigrants who entered under Biden came to the country legally through humanitarian parole. Nevertheless, on the campaign trail, Trump, who honored Haitian immigrants by mistakenly claiming that they were “eating cats and dogs,” declared in his presidential declaration that it is necessary to ban immigrants from Haiti as “hungles of hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded the United States during the Biden administration.”
What is the reason behind the ban?
Like the first travel ban, Trump argues that these bans are justified for two reasons: review and national security concerns about public safety. The new ban repeats these claims and adds new rationales. The country is based on “visa overstare rates” of tourists or those granted student visas. However, prohibitions do not necessarily lead to harm to punishment. For example, the ban lists high non-immigrant visa overstay rates as the only reason to limit visas in Burundi, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Togo and Turkmenistan. However, all of these countries are prohibited from issuing immigration visas, preventing people from coming here to get green cards that cannot be “overstayed.”
Similarly, the prohibition exempts “direct relatives” of US citizens who can present “clear and persuasive evidence of identity and family relationships (e.g. DNA)”. This is probably intended to address concerns about countries that do not share clear data on citizen identification. But if DNA testing is sufficient to prove the identity of a direct relative of a US citizen, why not allow it to other family-based immigration visa categories, such as a green card child, a US citizen sibling, or an adult child of a US citizen?
As a result, the new travel ban remains highly questionable as a useful tool to improve non-citizens’ “judgment.” That excess punishment is dragged by many who believe the declaration will not affect the concerns raised in the declaration, and its widespread exceptions can undermine the suspected security grounds for hundreds of thousands who have previously approved visas to remain in place. Instead, the main goal is to limit permanent immigration from countries Trump hates.
What are the effects of the ban?
There are many questions about the travel ban and its impact. Like previous bans, this new limit creates a country process that is added or removed from the restricted list. Which countries will remain on the list and which will take off? What will the wider impact on the economy be as new immigration by citizens of the nations affected by 19 are being blocked? How will major sporting events like the World Cup and the Olympics be affected by the visa ban limiting the impact of citizens trying to support their country? Will efforts to block this ban succeed in court, or will it remain in effect for at least the next four years?
These questions illustrate why exercises of these broad presidential powers to limit migration are plagued by the rule of law.
The president has indefinitely banned nearly 6% of the world from obtaining a visa using just a pen stroke, causing significant social, legal and economic consequences. The fundamental principle of fairness suggests that prohibiting someone from obtaining a visa based solely on the country in which they were born is a violation of American principles. Rather than increasing security, the ban threatens to disrupt the lives of millions of families and undermine the values the country cherishes.
Submitted below: Trump administration
