On March 6^th, a revised travel ban was issued by the president and his administration.

This refined executive order halts immigration for 90 days from the same six Muslim majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) though it now excludes Iraq. Travel ban 2.0 also halts incoming refugees for 120 days while not affecting permanent residents of the U.S. or green card holders, a major point of confusion and contention from the first ban.

This new order lacks the vague implications that launched disorder and massive public outrage around the nation’s airports back in January. Instead, this ban is quieter and more precise in its mission to halt Muslim immigration into the United States, while still parading under the guise of the fortification of national security. The order still refuses to acknowledge other more relevant countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia) in conversations about preventing foreign terrorism from infiltrating the U.S. as their deep business ties with the president himself influence the foreign policy that could shape a generation of both immigrants and Muslim Americans at home.

There has been no shortage of legal opposition to the new travel order. Hawaii was the first state to file a lawsuit against the order that will be heard by a federal judge on March 15, with several others (i.e. New York, Washington, Massachusetts) also filing complaints on Monday, March 13. US District Judge Michael Conley blocked the order from a Syrian family from leaving Aleppo to join family in the states. State attorneys across the country continue to work collaboratively to gather resources and work to fight the president’s religious discrimination.

But one question permeates the cacophony of dissent for the new travel order: Is it constitutional?

It is ultimately up to our nation’s court system to rule on whether the new order is the same Islamophobic ban from earlier this year just neatly repackaged or if the pretense of national security from foreign extremism is a valid enough reason to continue its implementation on March 16^th.

Until then, we can continue doing our part by donating to the ACLU, contacting state representatives, and unrelentingly voicing our opposition to an administration that looks to protect a select few.

#NOBAN