Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram

Chris M. Ingram ESQ – Trump’s Travel Ban 2.0.

by Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram on March 6, 2017

Trump Travel Ban 2.0

Trump Travel Ban 2.0

By Chris M. Ingram, LL.M., ESQ

Back to News Home Page

Today March 6th 2017, President Trump signed his second travel ban behind closed doors.  The ban does not take full effect until March 16th 2017, thus giving those affected plenty of time to file for an injunction to block its implementation.  The second ban is similar to the original ban in that six of the original seven countries are named again –  Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Iraq has now been removed from the list.

Will This Ban Survive Legal Scrutiny?

The 90-day ban will not affect:-

  1. Current green card holders
  2. Current visa holders
  3. Current approved refugees
  4. Those with dual nationality with a ‘banned country’

The 90-day travel ban will affect: –

  1. New green card applications [unclear whether this includes petitions]
  2. New visa applications
  3. New refugees
  4. Syrian refugees, subject to 120-day suspension

Other tweaks removed from 2.0. is any references to providing preferences to minority religions within the majority Muslim countries in the ban.

More Protests Ahead?

What Now?

It’s unclear as to whether this ban will ever actually get implemented because the law suits that will now quickly follow will cite recent Department of Homeland Security reports that people from the initial seven travel-ban countries posed no increased terror threat. The original Executive Order was highly flawed on its face because not only did the original ban include green card holders and current visa holders, it also discriminated against Muslims, and Syrian refugees for no apparent reason.

The Trump camp believes that by excluding green card holders, and current visa holders but not referencing any religions, they are on much safer ground for the ban to be deemed constitutional. The opposing camp will certainly argue that banning relatives of US citizens from even applying for a visa without cause, is problematic and causes irreparable harm. Universities and other state government entities will argue that the ban will prevent notable foreign dignitaries, professors and speakers from being able to apply for visas and will thus cause irreparable harm.

The President Does Have Legal Authority for the Ban, but Not to Arbitrarily Discriminate?

The President Does Have Legal Authority for the Ban, but Not to Arbitrarily Discriminate? – The Courts Will Decide.

The legal authority under which Trump is seeking to execute a ban comes from Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, where the President has authority to use a proclamation to suspend the entry of “any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States [who] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” for however long he deems necessary. This provision was included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The difficulty for President Trump, is two-fold; firstly, he is on the record of being very hostile to Muslims in particular, by saying on various occasions that he wanted a complete Muslim ban and he has colored any ban with a sense of the ban being motivated out of a desire to discriminate. Secondly, the ban itself appears not to have any real merit in terms of its purpose being to make America safer.

The 9th Circuit Court will only hear this matter again if someone brings suit in their jurisdiction. Some argue that some circuits lean liberal or conservative.

When the first ban came before the 9th Circuit Court, the judges asked the Trump camp, through the Justice Department to provide evidence as to specific threats emanating from the banned countries, as opposed to any other country. Since the 9th Cir. hearing, the Department of Homeland Security, as cited above, have produced a report that demonstrates that the banned countries pose no additional or heightened threat. It’s therefore going to be difficult for the Justice Department of overcome this if the court in a new hearing asks for the same justification.

So, until March 16th, it’s basically business as usual, but we expect to see legal challenges commenced within the next few days starting with law suits seeking injunctive relief, so the new ban never goes into force prior to a full hearing.

Immigration Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram

Immigration Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram

US Immigration Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram
Chris M. Ingram LL.M., ESQ – Immigration Attorney
Admitted in New York.
Practice Specializing in US Immigration Law
401 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor,
[Cross Streets 4th and Wilshire]
Santa Monica,
California 90401
Tel: 310 496 4292

Everyday the Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram provides a comprehensive range of US Immigration expertise. We also provide a free consultation for our prospective clients.

Please note that nothing contained in this website or link therefrom shall be regarded as providing legal advice. Please contact us directly for legal advice specific to your situation. Thank You.

Specializing in the E2 Visa, EB1 Green Card, L-1A Visa and O1 Visa and K1 Visa Marriage-Based Immigration. Attorney Chris M. Ingram is dedicated to providing the very best in US Immigration legal representation. Enjoy our website.

Important Notice: Please note that all videos created by the Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram are intended as general information only and not specific legal advice pertaining your case. If you would like specific legal advice on any immigration matter please do not hesitate to contact this law office accordingly. All pictorial images used in these videos and the website in general are licensed stocked images and not portraits, or otherwise, of anyone from the Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram, nor of its clients unless otherwise indicated by name. All images are used solely for illustrative purposes only. Copyright 2010-2017 All Rights Reserved.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: