President Trump’s latest version of the travel ban his administration has been trying to implement since the first days of his taking office has come to yet another halt mere hours before it was set to take effect. This third iteration called for the complete suspension of travel into the United States for individuals from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela in the interests of national security amidst the ongoing threat of international terrorism. The order was set in go into effect on Wednesday, October 18, but was temporarily blocked on Tuesday by Judge Derrick K. Watson of Hawaii, the same judge responsible for freezing the second version of the ban in March. U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Maryland followed up with another, albeit less complete, halt early Wednesday morning.

According to Judge Watson, the latest travel restrictions suffer “from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor”, namely that it “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in direct contradiction to the principles set forth by the Founding Fathers. He also argued that the Trump administration had not given direct evidence to support that this ban was in America’s best national security interests, in particular because they failed to show a connection between a person’s nationality and the threat they presented.  Judge Chuang responded with a partial block of the directive by ruling that the administration could not enforce its restrictions on any individual with a “bona fide” relationship with the United States, meaning anyone with family members or a professional or legitimate engagement within the country. He reasoned that the president’s language both on the campaign trail and on Twitter had convinced him that this was yet another attempt at a Muslim ban and was therefore unconstitutional.

Ian Prior, the spokesperson from the Department of Justice, commented that the rulings represented a violation of the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches, and that the Trump administration intended to appeal. This marks the third time that the government will have to go to court against the state of Hawaii in order to defend its directive. It is important to note that both of these rulings are only temporary and are intended to maintain order during the legal battle until the appeals court can make its decision. While Judge Watson’s previous ruling was upheld by the appeals courts, the government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the ban to go into partial effect.

Sources:

New York Times – Judge Temporarily Halts New Version of Trump’s Travel Ban

Washington Post – Second judge rules against latest travel ban, saying Trump’s own words show it was aimed at Muslims

The INTERPOL General Assembly met in Beijing for a four-day conference, which concluded today and convened as many as 1,000 senior law enforcement officials as well as government ministers from a total of 156 countries. The General Assembly is the chief governing body of INTERPOL, whose mission is to serve as “the natural custodian of global law enforcement interests”.

According to an INTERPOL media release, one of the outcomes of the conference was to adopt a policy on data processing on refugees, with the primary purpose of preventing criminals and terrorists from abusing refugee status. This resolution was overwhelmingly approved by delegates at the convention, and puts forth a series of measures that member countries would be required to enforce during the asylum application process. This would involve “systematically checking INTERPOL’s databases”, as well as using and expanding access to the INTERPOL Information System so that all relevant authorities can more easily exchange information.

The policy also asks that member countries inform either INTERPOL’s General Secretariat headquarters or the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files when “an individual has been granted refugee status” as well as “on the outcome of an asylum application review”. This requirement corresponds to the national laws and confidentiality requirements that the General Assembly already has in place.

Jürgen Stock, INTERPOL’s Secretary General, is confident that this resolution will help maintain a balance between improving international police cooperation and improving safeguards to ensure the protection of the rights of refugees. It also serves to formalize a policy set forth by INTERPOL’s Executive Committee in June 2014 that has already “been applied to the processing of Red Notices and diffusions against refugees”. Finally, it directly relates to the United Nations Security Council resolutions that encourage countries to take action to safeguard refugee status against abuse “by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts”.

The conference concluded with the delegates reaffirming their support for INTERPOL’s seven global policing goals for 2030. These key security topics involve countering terrorism, promoting border integrity, protecting vulnerable communities, securing cyberspace, promoting global integrity, curbing illicit markets, and supporting environmental security. Secretary General Stock closed the conference with a call for a united effort to address these evolving security threats, which is needed now more than ever.

On September 24, 2017, President Trump released a presidential proclamation with an extended and more detailed version of the travel ban that his administration has been constructing for months. This new version follows as a result of the worldwide review the president requested in March as part of Executive Order (E.O.) 13780, which resulted in an in-depth evaluation of nearly 200 countries “with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices”, as well as whether or not they “have a significant terrorist presence within their territory”. Per the outcome of this review along with advice from the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, as well as the Attorney General, President Trump decided that there are a small number of countries that do not meet the criteria, and may therefore pose a risk to “the security and interests of the United States and its people”. With that in mind, the president has imposed travel restrictions on individuals from the following countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Additional restrictions have been placed on Iraq and Somalia, albeit to a lesser extent than the aforementioned countries.

As previously mentioned, this new order is far more comprehensive than the administration’s original travel ban, which was released without warning on January 27, 2017, causing chaos at airports across the country and sparking protests against the ban’s controversial nature. While the original ban only targeted individuals from predominantly Muslim countries, North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad have now been added to the list, while restrictions on travel from Sudan have been dropped. Opponents of the Trump administration nicknamed the original order the “Muslim ban”, following in part from Trump’s comments on the campaign trail when he called for a ban on travel for all Muslims to the United States in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015. Multiple legal battles ensued questioning the constitutionality of the so-called Muslim ban, resulting in its nullification by multiple circuit and district courts. A revised version of the ban eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which allowed the ban to take partial effect in June and agreed to hear further arguments in October. However, the Supreme Court abruptly cancelled these oral arguments on September 25th, shortly after the newer, broader ban was released.

Although the new ban is country-specific, for the most part it restricts entry from both immigrants and non-immigrants, including those on business or tourist visas. Valid student and exchange visitor visas will not be affected. The administration specifically seeks to restrict travel from nationals with immigrant visas since, should national security issues arise, they are more difficult to remove from the country once they become lawful permanent residents. According to the proclamation, this “heightens the costs and dangers of errors associated with admitting such individuals”. Any immigrant or nonimmigrant in the United States, or those that have or qualify for a visa before the applicable effective date will not affected. Waivers may be granted on a case-by-case basis, but only if the individual meets certain conditions and requirements that will be determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the Secretary of Homeland Security may at any time, after consulting with the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Director of National Intelligence, decide to add or remove some or all restrictions for a given country, based on whether or not they are in compliance with the standards outlined in the proclamation.