The first time around, President Donald Trump’s travel ban hit a range of legal snags. His order in January blocking citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States was struck down by a federal appeals court over concerns about discrimination.
On Monday, Trump unveiled a new version of the order. Some of its most controversial provisions—like its indefinite suspension of the Syrian refugee program—were removed. Iraq was also removed from the list of banned countries, reportedly after negotiations between Defense Secretary James Mattis and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.
But critics say the ban’s central legal failing—the possibility that it is motivated by keeping Muslims out of the country—still holds.
Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, is among those critics. She says the intent of the original order is preserved in the second iteration.
"The fatal flaw of the original executive order on the Muslim ban, which is that it discriminates against people based on religious discriminatory intent—which is unconstitutional in America—is still there with the second Muslim ban. It doesn't fix the problem," she said.
"If it looks like a Muslim ban, smells like a Muslim ban, it still is a Muslim ban," she continued.
According to the New York Times, the new version of the ban drops religious exceptions for persecuted religious minorities, and no longer applies to permanent residents and current visa holders. But Rose says that doesn't mean the new version won't impact immigration into the United States profoundly.
"That doesn't mean they can't continue to come up with other ways to scare people away from not just those countries, but from all countries coming to the United States," Rose said.
"I suspect that they will, and I'll tell you the ACLU will beat them at every step of the way," she continued.
To hear more from Carol Rose, tune in to Boston Public Radio above.
