On January 27, 2017 president Donald trump issued the Executive Order 13769, also known as “protecting the Nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States”. This executive order states a travel ban (with some exceptions) on seven countries of the middle east. What made this executive order so controversial is that the religious majority on these territories is Muslim and therefore creating a xenophobic impression from the president.
This executive order (EO-1) stated a travel ban for refugees and B1/B2 Visa holders (tourism and business), and refugees to and from: Iran, Libya, Somali, Sudan, Syria, Yemen. This executive order brought an uproar from a large amount of entities and institutions among the list of indignant institution
…show more content…
This TRO is due to the rapid enforcement of EO-1 who created chaos in the airports as commercial flights incoming from these countries were notified when they landed in the United States, without any prior notice and planning, these tourists and refugees were stranded with nowhere to go and with a denied entry into the country. This chaos and confusion led to the response from voluntary immigration lawyers having to go to the airports to help these stranded refugees avoid being deported in the …show more content…
This ruling didn’t vary too much in comparison to EO-2, it just added more territories into the ban, such as North Korea and Venezuela. North Korea was added to the list due to the rising tensions With the United States. However, Venezuela has different reasons for being included in this infamous list. Although Venezuela is not a country who has had any terrorist related issues with America, its detrimental government and censure methods have earned Venezuela a place in this infamous list. On October 17 a Judge from Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order against the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing EO-2 and EO-3 against foreign nationals from Chad, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. Although these Executive orders have had a rough start and execution, on December 22 the 9th circuit of the United States stated that the plaintiffs (pres. Donald Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson) have shown a likelihood to succeed with these executive orders, and therefore not having to reach for their constitutional claims (State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump