The American Immigration Council does not endorse or oppose candidates for elected office. We aim to provide analysis regarding the implications of the election on the U.S. immigration system.

Eight years ago, President Trump made history by invoking an obscure authority, section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to “suspend the entry” of nationals of multiple Muslim-majority nations. After two versions of the ban were initially struck down in court, the Supreme Court upheld a third version, which remained in effect until President Biden terminated it in 2021. Now President Trump’s travel ban is back and bigger than ever, impacting 19 countries and potentially blocking over 125,000 people each year from being able to come to the United States—either temporarily or permanently—indefinitely.

How is Trump’s new travel ban different than the ‘Muslim Ban?’

The first travel ban, colloquially known as the “Muslim Ban,” imposed visa restrictions that ranged in severity from a total ban on all non-immigrant and immigrant visas for some countries, to more minor restrictions on visas for some nations. For example, the version of the ban upheld by the Supreme Court barred all visas for nationals of Chad, all nonimmigrant visas for nationals of North Korea, and only tourist visas for specific Venezuelan government officials and their families.

The new restrictions put in place are far more sweeping than Trump’s first travel bans. The following 12 countries have been targeted for total visa bans:

Afghanistan

Burma

Chad

Republic of the Congo

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Haiti

Iran

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Yemen

Meanwhile, these seven countries have been targeted with bans on all immigrant visas and all tourist, student, and exchange visitor visas (B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas):

Burundi

Cuba

Laos

Sierra Leone

Togo

Turkmenistan

Venezuela

Like with the previous travel bans, there are some exceptions. The bans do not apply to anyone with a current green card or a current valid visa; people who are immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen (spouses, children under the age of 21, and parents); and refugees; asylees; and individuals granted humanitarian protection. Notably, Trump has also suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program indefinitely, making that last exception not particularly helpful.

Also exempted are diplomats and NATO personnel; dual nationals traveling on a non-banned-country’s passport; children adopted abroad; Afghans seeking Special Immigrant Visas for their work helping U.S. armed forces; ethnic or religious minorities fleeing persecution in Iran; athletes, coaches, support staff, and immediate relatives of athletes participating in “major sporting events” like the World Cup and the Olympics; and any individual whose entry is deemed in the “national interest.”

Of the 19 countries targeted by the latest ban, only nine were targeted by the first set of bans. One of those countries, Chad, had actually been removed from the first set of bans in April 2018, after the Trump administration determined that Chad had addressed the vetting issues that justified a visa ban. The new countries include multiple nations with large immigrant populations in the United States, including Cuba, Haiti, and Venezuela.

Those three countries in particular have been attacked by the Trump administration in recent months, with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem ending a humanitarian parole program for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and terminating Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela, Cameroon, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Haiti, with the designation expiring in the fall.

A federal judge previously declared that the termination of TPS for Venezuela was motivated by animus, and the new proclamation notably singles out Haitian migrants as a reason for the bans. The majority of Haitian migrants who entered under Biden came to the country legally through humanitarian parole. Nevertheless, Trump, who on the campaign trail libeled Haitian migrants by falsely claiming that they were “eating cats and dogs,” declares in the presidential proclamation that banning immigration from Haiti is necessary because “hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration.”

What is the reasoning behind the ban?

As with the first travel bans, Trump claims that these bans are justified for two reasons: national security concerns about vetting and public safety. The new ban repeats those claims and adds a new rationale—restricting countries base on the “visa overstay rate” for people granted tourist or student visas. However, the bans do not necessarily connect the harms to the punishment. For example, the ban lists high nonimmigrant visa overstay rates as the sole reason for restricting visas from Burundi, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Togo, and Turkmenistan. However, all of those countries are subject to a ban on the issuance of immigrant visas, blocking people from coming here to obtain green cards, which cannot be “overstayed.”

Similarly, the ban exempts any “immediate relative” of a U.S. citizen who can show “clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship (e.g. DNA).” This is presumably aimed to address concerns about countries which don’t share clear data on identification of their nationals. But if DNA testing can be enough to prove the identity of an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, why not permit it for other family-based immigrant visa categories, such as children of people with green cards, siblings of U.S. citizens, or adult children of U.S. citizens?

As a result, the new travel ban remains highly suspect as a valid tool for improving the “vetting” of noncitizens. Its overinclusive punishments drag in many people whose entry would seem not to impact any of the concerns raised in the proclamation, and its broad exceptions permit hundreds of thousands of people previously approved for visas to continue entering, undermining any alleged security rationale. Instead, the primary goal seems to be to restrict permanent immigration from countries that Trump dislikes.

What is the impact of the ban?

There are many questions about the travel ban and its impacts going forward. As with the previous ban, this new restriction creates a process for countries to be added or removed from the restricted list. What countries will remain on the list, and which ones will be taken off? What will the broader impacts on the economy be, as new immigration by nationals of the 19 impacted countries is cut off? How will major sporting events like the World Cup and the Olympics be affected by a visa ban restricting impacted nationals seeking to visit to cheer on their country? Will efforts to block this ban be successful in court, or will it remain in effect through at least the next four years?

These questions demonstrate why the exercise of these broad presidential powers to restrict migration are troubling to the rule of law.

The president has indefinitely barred nearly 6% of the entire world from obtaining visas, solely with the stroke of a pen, causing significant social, legal, and economic consequences. Fundamental principles of fairness suggest that banning someone from obtaining a visa solely based on their country of birth is a violation of American principles. Rather than boosting security, this ban threatens to disrupt the lives of millions of families and weaken the values that this country holds dear.

FILED UNDER: Trump administration