President Trump's Travel Bans

Introduction 

Early during the start of his term as president, Donald Trump made his main campaign pledge true by issuing an executive order, which meant to ban immigration from a number of Muslim countries. This executive order then set a stage of legal battles and various arguments regarding the legality, cons and pros of the executive order. It is also important to recall that the move also sparked huge protests in the United States as citizens expressed their displeasure at the decision taken by the president. Many were denied access to the United States and even a number of arrests occurred in the international airports of the country. It is important to analyze the various aspects of this executive order related to criminal justice. 

What exactly is an executive order? 

An executive order is simply a form of directive given by the President of the United States after the advice and consent of a major government agency or department associated with the specific aspects of it. An executive order is normally a directive to a specific federal agency or department for the purpose of implementing its content. It normally has the full backing of the law. The Congress designates some degree of discretionary powers to the president for purposes of such decisions. 

January 27, 2017 is the day that President Trump gave out an executive order barring, with some exceptions, nationals of specific 7 Muslim countries from entering the country. This executive order also suspended the entry into the United States by the refugees for a temporary period of 120 days. It also reduced the size of refugees that would later be admissible into the United States in the year 2017. This executive order elicited heated reaction from people and became a subject of court battles that ended with its suspension by judges (Breithaupt & Pulverer, 2017). Another revised order was again issued on March 6, 2017. 

Summary of the provisions of the ban 

This executive order provides a number of measures meant to be implemented in a bid of improving homeland security. The first provision is suspension of entry into the United States by people from nations like Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Iran. The executive order also implements uniform screening standards, which is are meant to detect the possible fraud and threats to the homeland security. As mentioned earlier, this executive order halts the United States refugee program for a period of 120 days. This halting is meant to allow for the examination to establish the necessary additional screening practices to be implemented. The refugee number admissible in the United States is now cut down to 50,000 every year. This executive order also touches on the issue of installation of the biometric entry and exit system. It must also be mentioned that this ban does suspend the Visa interview waiver and increases the Consular Fellows program. These are among the notable provisions of this executive order, which many people feel have arguable good and bad effects on the country as a whole. 

How did the idea of the ban come about? 

The President, himself, has always come out to explain the need for controlling the inflow of people from the external nations since homeland security has grown into a very sensitive issue. However, to many people citizens, this ban came as a surprise. There were many people who were already on plans to travel to the United States, but were caught up by this ban. Some people from the countries affected were already on their journeys to the United States. Most of them were arrested at the airports and some sent back to their nations. It came as a surprise directive for many (Masri & Senussi, 2017). This anguish, which a lot of the affected people went through, is what made the judges to put it on halt. Moreover, disappointment that many citizens felt could be seen in the large demonstrations held across the country. 

The Justice Department explained the rationale behind the order arguing that the country has been under continued attacks of terrorism executed by people who come in as refugees or immigrants from the Muslim nations in the Middle East. According to the President, many foreign nationals have been implicated and even convicted in the terrorism-related crimes from the time of the big September 11, 2001 attack. The president explained that among the criminals implicated and convicted are those who entered the United States as students, visitors and employees. Those who entered the country as part of the United States refugee resettlement program have also become terrorists and turned against the nation. The Justice Department argued that the United States has to be extremely vigilant and this executive order was meant to enhance caution on the inflow of people into the nation. There is an argument that the fear of terrorists entering the country because of the huge war happening in the Middle East is among reasons for this executive order. Therefore, it can be argued that the many cases of foreigners being convicted and implicated in the incidences of terror attacks on the United States were the basis for the issuance of this executive order. The executive order explained that there was need for the country to ensure that the people who come from other nations do not hold a negative attitude towards it as well as its people and even the United States principles. It is vital to note that Muslim radical groups from the Arab world in the Middle East have always had very hostile attitude towards the United States and its people. They feel the United States is always killing their people and it has to fall for them to live in peace. 

Justice Department lawyers say most of those affected by the ban have never entered the United States before. Such a person, they say, "requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights" under a 1982 Supreme Court ruling. If anyone should get relief from Trump's order, the brief says, it should be "previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future." The government relies on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which gave the president the power to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals if he determines their entry "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." To back up the claim, its district court brief lists eight instances dating back to President Ronald Reagan in 1986 when presidents blocked residents of certain nations, such as Cuba, Libya, Russia, Somalia and Yemen, from being granted admission to the U.S. Beyond the constitutional and legal arguments, the administration also maintains that states such as Washington and Minnesota lack standing to bring their challenge because, unlike would-be immigrants and refugees, they are not subject to the travel ban. Having claimed presidential authority and questioned the states’ arguments, government lawyers also criticize Robart’s ruling as "vastly overbroad" because it applies nationwide, even though a federal judge in Massachusetts upheld the executive order in a separate, more limited case (Spiegel & Rubenstein, 2017). 

However, there are many people who came out to oppose this executive order. he challenge to Trump's order is being led by the attorneys general from Washington state and Minnesota, with help from arguments filed by a broad ranges of groups, including 16 other states and the District of Columbia, two former secretaries of State, three former CIA directors, 97 tech companies and 284 law professors. In a joint filing, the attorneys general concede that the 1952 law does give broad powers to a president to enforce immigration laws in the U.S. But they say Trump's executive order goes far beyond the legal limitations originally enshrined in the Constitution and later enacted by Congress. They say the 1952 powers given to a president were limited by a 1965 law that prohibits discrimination against immigrants based on their country of origin (Samson, 2017). They say Trump's national security arguments are undercut because no one from the countries listed in the travel ban have committed terrorist acts on U.S. soil. "Though (the order) cites the attacks of September 11, 2001, as a rationale, it imposes no restrictions on people from the countries whose nationals carried out those attacks," they say in court papers (Shapiro, 2017). Even though the White House has repeatedly said the order does not constitute a "Muslim ban," the attorneys general argue that his repeated call for such a ban on the campaign trail shows the true intent of his order. That allegation is bolstered, they say, by the fact that Trump's order includes a section giving immigration preference to people who practice a "minority religion" and fear "religious-based persecution" in their countries.  

The seven countries listed in Trump's ban are 97% Muslim. "The sham of a secular purpose is exposed both by the language of the order and defendants’ expressions of anti-Muslim intent," they maintain. And they argue that Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. While the administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, the attorneys general say longtime, legal residents of the U.S., those who were detained at U.S. airports or stranded abroad by Trump's order, have every right to do so. "A temporary absence from the country does not deprive longtime residents of their right to due process," they say. 

Impact of the travel ban on refugees and asylum seekers 

If the plans to have this executive implemented will succeed beyond the current court cases, it is expected that refugees from the war-torn Middle East will then have to suffer. The number that will be allowed in the United States is only 50,000 for every year. The implication of this number is that many will be locked out of the country hence have no place to seek refuge when they are overwhelmed by the atrocities committed on them in their homelands. 

It is not just the refugees alone that will be affected adversely by this executive order, but also the people seeking asylum in the United States. Premised on the fallacious assumption regarding the criminality and extremist tendencies of the immigrants, the executive order banning travel restricts access to asylum in the United States. With the implementation of these orders, therefore, there will a large-scale detention of those seeking asylum in the United States (Khan & Ali, 2017). 

It is vital to observe the fact that the number of asylum seekers detained has been growing in the recent years. Refugees and individuals fleeing hostile homeland security conditions are confronting changed policies in the United States. The changed policies now prioritize family detention as a way of discouraging the asylum seekers. In the reformed policies, the undocumented individuals at ports of entry are now considered as the priorities for implementation. It is common knowledge that the United States is now operating the biggest project of detaining families that can only be compared to the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans in the course of World War II. It is reported that in the fiscal year of 2014, about 44,228 asylum seekers were put in immigration detention. This number represented 77% of all the asylum seekers within the court proceedings. By the end of the year 2016, 735 of the immigration detainees were retained in the private prison facilities. Many human rights activists have always condemned these private prison facilities. They are accused fort being dens where human rights are violated through the provision of inadequate water, poor medical services and sexual abuse actions. 

A lot of the asylum seekers in the United States are from Central America. Many mothers and children have increasingly been held up under family detention in the recent years. In this case, families are normally kept in prison-like conditions within specific buildings. Members of families come into these settings either separately or are simply split up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody framework after they reach the United States. It is important to note that this splitting up of families upon reaching the country is a source of deep psychological stress to the detainees. Moreover, it normally separates applicants who are in the same case hence making it hard for successful presentation of the required evidence to be granted the asylum claims. The separation of families is also the cause of inconsistent results and case times among the members of a given family (Qiu, 2017). While they have to appear in the courts together at the same time because of the case that binds them, the members of a family may receive different timelines for the hearing of their claims. 

Under the international law, it is unlawful for the United States to detain the asylum seekers. This kind of detentions violates the obligation of the United States under the international law. According to the provisions of Article 31(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, a country may restrict the movement of refugees only when it is necessary. Detaining asylum seekers based on immigration law violations, entering without documentation, contradicts the Article 31 prohibition on penalizing illegal entry or presence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees individuals freedom from arbitrary detention. Detention programs intended to deter future migrants are inherently arbitrary as they are not based on an assessment of an individual’s circumstances. 

This unlawful and heinous system is what the current executive order issued by Donald Trump will expand if implemented. It will increase the number of asylum seekers and refugees under detention. It is important to note that what worries people even more is the fact that there are exceptions made for the asylum seekers in any of the provisions of this executive order (Gwynne, 2017). With this executive order in operation, individuals will just be detained on grounds of mere suspicion of having violated the federal law of unauthorized entry in to the United States of America. In fact, this executive order contemplates construction of the detention facilities along the borders of the United States so that it can accommodate the increased detained population. This will in all likelihood result in an even larger population of prospective refugees being detained in deplorable conditions purely on the basis of suspicion, without significant procedural protections. 

The other impact of this executive order on the refugees and the asylum seekers is the difficulty they will have in accessing counsel. Once detained, the asylum seekers will find it quite hard to access counsel. Without counsel, it will be very hard for the asylum seekers to win their cases. While in the United States of America, an asylum seeker needs counsel because he or she does not understand the related legal requirements within this country. For instance, most asylum seekers in the United States may not understand the fact that the claims have to be made within the period of first 1 year of entry in to this nation. 

There is also the issue of parole, where this executive order given by Donald Trump to ban travel into the United States threatens this important right. It will be hard for the asylum seekers to use parole as an essential humanitarian mechanism during the application process, with the implementation of this travel ban (Guild, Bigo & Carrera, 2017). Normally, it has been the policy of the United States to consider the individuals with ascertained credible fear for parole on the humanitarian grounds. This parole is always given to them as long as they are of no threat to the security of the country. However, the great impact of the travel ban will be the restrictions on granting fearful asylum seekers parole. 

Furthermore, there is also the issue of the travel ban affecting the unity of the whole country. The United States of America is now being viewed as an anti-Muslim nation because of the import of this executive order. There are tensions between the Muslims and the Christians in the country. It is quite likely that implementation of this travel ban, specifically on the Muslims from the seven countries enlisted in the executive order will greatly enhance discrimination against the Islam religion in the nation and lead to religious divisions (Gostin, 2017). The federal government will be seen as one for the Christians alone, but not the Muslims. This scenario will be quite dangerous even for the homeland security status of the nation. 

Moreover, this travel ban is also going to increase the number of asylum seekers and refugees deported without being given the chance for appealing. The travel ban seeks to have expedited removal of the asylum seekers from the black-listed nations. People will not have the time to explain their cases as it has been in the past years. 

Conclusion 

The executive order issued by Donald Trump is going to have great implications if implemented. The reservations held about its possible negative consequences make the reason for its halt by the courts. A lot of people within the judiciary have raised concerns and poked holes in the legality of the whole travel ban. It is one of the controversial executive orders ever issued in the United States. Since it is currently on halt, it will be wise to watch the impact will have once enforced. 

References 

Breithaupt, H., & Pulverer, B. (2017). Trump's travel travesty. Embopress . 

Gostin, L. O. (2017). Best Evidence Aside: Why Trump's Executive Order Makes America Less Healthy.  Hastings Center Report ,  47 (2), 5-6. 

Guild, E., Bigo, D., & Carrera, S. (2017). Trump's travel bans. Harvesting personal data and requiem for the EU-US Privacy Shield. CEPS Policy Insights No. 2017/03, April 2017. 

Gwynne, P. (2017). Anger over Trump's travel curbs.  Physics World ,  30 (3), 6. 

Khan, M., & Ali, H. (2017). Medical Students Trumped by America’s Travel Ban.  Annals Abbasi Shaheed Hospital & Karachi Medical & Dental College ,  22 (1), 77-78. 

Masri, A., & Senussi, M. H. (2017). Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration—Detrimental Effects on Medical Training and Health Care.  New England Journal of Medicine . 

Qiu, L. (2017, February 23). Fact-Checking Claims About Trump’s Travel Ban. Retrieved April 06, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/politics/fact-checking-claims-about-trumps-travel-ban.html. 

Samson, K. (2017). Legal Reversal of Trump Travel Ban May Not Quell Academic Concerns.  Neurology Today ,  17 (5), 1-27. 

Shapiro, J. N. (2017). The Flawed Logic of Trump's Executive Order.  Foreign Affairs . 

Spiegel, P., & Rubenstein, L. (2017). The academic case for repealing Trump's refugee and travel ban.  The Lancet ,  389 (10070), 679-680. 

Trump's Executive Order On Immigration, Annotated. (2017, January 31). Retrieved April 09, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated. 

Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect? (2017, February 10). Retrieved April 08, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302.