[WATCH] Trump’s latest travel ban: explained

A judge in Hawaii has blocked the latest version of the Trump administration travel ban, just hours before it was set to take affect, saying that it “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor”.

US district judge, Derrick Watson, granted Hawaii’s request to temporarily block the federal government from enforcing the policy, which was meant to take effect at midnight (ETD) on Wednesday.

Federal judge blocks latest version of Trump travel ban, finding it discriminates on basis of nationality. https://t.co/vJXm3iCbok

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 17, 2017

The most recent restrictions affect citizens of Iran, Chad, Libya, Somalia, North Korea, Yemen, Syria and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.

On Sunday evening, the Trump administration issued its third travel ban, in less than a year, opening another chapter in the heated legal and civil rights battle, which has dominated much of Trump’s first nine months in office.

What does the new ban involve?

There were some key revisions to this ban, making it more expansive than its predecessors. The restrictions now target more countries than before, with the last one aimed at travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, as well as all refugees.

This ban is now targeted at the issuing of visas for citizens of eight countries, five of which – Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya – were included in Trump’s first two bans, and three others, including Venezuela, North Korea and Chad. The order also places Iraqi travellers under “additional scrutiny”, but does not ban entire visa classes, as it does with the other mentioned eight nations.

Trump’s first and second bans sought to freeze the issuing of visas, from the targeted countries for 90 days, in order to allow the Department of Homeland Security to assess worldwide screening and visa vetting procedures.

The new restrictions announced on Sunday however, are essentially indefinite, although the administration said that they will be reviewed if the targeted countries improve their co-operation with the US government.

The order does not include guidance for refugees, due the administration having another 30 days to decide how to proceed with limiting refugee admissions.

Why was Sudan dropped and other countries added?

Sudan was included in the first two bans and dropped in the third, without any specific explanation from the Trump administration. According to Trump, the DHS vetting review led to some “improvements” and “positive results” in certain countries, but failed to confirm whether Sudan was included in this update.

Advocates have suggested that the DHS decision to end temporary protected for Sudan last week, which gave immigration status to Sudanese citizens in the US, due to ongoing conflict in the region, may have had to do with the decision.

Becca Hella, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said that “the government of Sudan was pressured into agreeing to accept massive numbers of deported Sudanese nationals from the US, in exchange for being dropped from the travel ban”.

Chad, which is 52% Muslim has also need added to the ban, due to what was referred to as a failure to “adequately share public-safety and terrorism-related information”. A number of observers have found, however, the Trump administration’s move strange due to Chad’s close counter-terrorism partnership with the US.

Former US ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell, said he believed the move was “a matter of incompetence” rather than anything else.

“Here you have a country that in terms of the most important political issue in Africa, terrorism, is on the right side. It is one of the poorest countries in the area. American airports are not overwhelmed by Chadians arriving. You put all this together, and I fall back on incompetence”, said Campbell.

Venezuela and North Korea were also added to the list. Although the Trump administration argued that both countries fail to share adequate information with the US, such restrictions may be referred to as official sanctions, rather than travel bans.

The curbs placed on Venezuela only affect a small amount of government officials and their relatives. While the ban on the North is all-encompassing, with the exception of diplomatic entries, relations with the country have been frozen for a while.

The US issued just nine immigrant visas to North Koreans last year, one in 2014 and another seven in 2015.

According to the supreme court, those in the targeted countries (which were the six, at the time), who could prove a “bona fide relationship” with family members, or US entities, such as an employer, should be allowed entry. This order carries no exception, although it does continue to honour existing visas and permanent residency.

What about the supreme court case over the second ban?

The supreme court was due to hear arguments on Trump’s second ban on 10 October, just eight days before the new ban is due to go into effect.

On Monday, however, it cancelled that hearing and asked for updated briefings from the government and the two groups of challengers.

The claim that the two previous orders were motivated by “religious animus”, in this case, discrimination against Muslims, has been central to challenges to the ban throughout. The administration is likely to argue that the inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela, neither of which are Muslim majority nations, alleviates these concerns.

Rights groups have indicated that they will argue that this is a mere “smokescreen for discrimination”, as the restrictions on both countries are both limited.