This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39044403

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Trump travel ban: Five questions about the new executive order Trump travel ban: Five questions about the revised executive order
(3 days later)
President Donald Trump has unveiled an updated executive order, reviving his bid to ban refugees and immigrants from several mostly Muslim countries from entering the US. President Donald Trump's second attempt to ban refugees and immigrants from several mostly Muslim countries from entering the US has - like his first - run into legal difficulties.
His previous order, which sparked mass protests and confusion at airports, was halted by the courts. His first executive order, which sparked mass protests and confusion at airports, was halted by the courts in February.
The new, updated one has also been challenged - seven states have joined an effort to block it. Then just hours before a revised version was due to go into effect at midnight on 16 March, a judge in Hawaii suspended it nationwide.
But how is the new order different - and what is still not clear? How is the second order different - and what happens next?
Who will be affected? Who does the ban affect?
The original order barred people from seven majority-Muslim countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya - from entering the US for 90 days. It also halted refugee resettlement for 120 days and banned Syrian refugees indefinitely.The original order barred people from seven majority-Muslim countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya - from entering the US for 90 days. It also halted refugee resettlement for 120 days and banned Syrian refugees indefinitely.
However, many questions remained about the detail of the ban. How would it affect people from the seven countries who were also permanent legal US residents? And what about people who already had US visas or dual nationality? The revised order removed Iraq from the list, after it agreed to boost co-operation with the US and also the lifted the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.
Previously, there was confusion about people from the seven countries who were also permanent legal US residents (green card holders), or who already had US visas or dual nationality. The new version makes it clear that visa and green card holders from the countries on the list - now six countries - will still be allowed entry, as will dual nationals travelling on a passport from a country not on the list.
Waivers can be granted on a case-by-case basis, if denying entry would "cause undue hardship", in cases such as:
The number of refugees for the year until October will be capped at 50,000, some 35,000 less than the previous 12 months.
Why those countries?
The second executive order states that each of the six countries is either considered a state sponsor of terrorism by the US or "has been significantly compromised by terrorist organisations or contains active conflict zones". This "diminishes the foreign government's willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States," the order says.
Critics have noted that major attacks such as the 9/11 New York attacks, the Boston marathon bombing and the Orlando nightclub attack were carried out by people from countries not on the list, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kyrgyzstan, or by US-born attackers.
More on Trump's travel banMore on Trump's travel ban
The head of Homeland Security, Mr Kelly, said the new version of the travel order would not prevent foreign nationals with either work visas or Green Card permanent residency permits from re-entering the United States. Nor would it affect foreign travellers already flying to the US when the order takes effect, he added. Why was it originally suspended?
It will also no longer include Iraq, after it agreed to "increase cooperation" with the US government, according to a fact sheet which was circulating ahead of the announcement. Judges who first suspended - and then upheld the suspension - of the first order cited several concerns:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said of the six countries remaining, three were state sponsors of terrorism and the other three had lost control, increasing the risk of a terrorist emerging from their territory. They will still be banned for 90 days. The second order allowed a 10-day lead-in time before it was due to come into effect, in an attempt to avoid the confusion and uncertainty caused by the immediate implementation of the first, where scores of people were detained at airports or in transit.
The refugee programme will be suspended for 120 days, with only those who are already formally approved and scheduled allowed to enter. The fact sheet also suggests the number of refugees for the year until October will be capped at 50,000, some 35,000 shy of the previous 12 months. But nevertheless, a judge in Hawaii still suspended the revised order. He concluded that, were the ban to go ahead, there was a strong likelihood it would cause "irreparable injury" by violating First Amendment protections against religious discrimination.
But the order no longer demands that border authorities single out and reject Syrian refugees when processing new visa applications. His justification focused on comments made by Mr Trump and his advisers that suggested their intention was to ban people on the basis of their religion, even though the administration says this is not the case.
How will it be implemented? The Hawaii court also cited a "dearth of evidence indicating a national security purpose".
The original order triggered a lot confusion and uncertainty. Scores of people were detained at airports or in transit, with many more stranded or forced to return to where they came from. The justice department said the ruling was "flawed both in reasoning and in scope".
US government officials complained that the roll-out had been chaotic, and there was a lack of guidance before the policy was announced on 27 January. Other legal challenges:
The new order will only come into effect on 16 March, allowing officials time to put structures in place. Oregon - said the order hurts residents, employers, universities, health care system and economy
It will also honour valid visas from the six countries during the 90-day ban.
Mr Kelly said this time around, his department would ensure that "there's no-one... caught in the system of moving from overseas to our airports, which happened on the first release".
He said there would be a "short phase-in period" and immigration officials would "make sure that people on the other end don't get on airplanes".
The impact on US embassies as well as airports and border crossings will be closely watched.
Will it answer legal questions?
The president's spokesman says it will. Sean Spicer told reporters last month that the second order would be "tailored to achieve the same goals" as the first "but in accordance with what the [appeals] court said".
One of the concerns that the judges in San Francisco cited when they refused to reinstate the original ban was the way it was rolled out. They said the justice department had failed to show that the executive order gave enough "notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual's ability to travel".
Legal experts will ask whether the Trump administration can prove that the order is needed to keep the country safe.
In its ruling, the appeals court judges found "no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order" had committed a terrorist attack in the US.
Meanwhile, the exclusion of Syrians in January's order was also problematic. The Immigration and Nationality Act says no person can be "discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence".
Several states have challenged the new order.
Oregon - said the order hurts residents, employers, universities health care system and economy
Washington - it has "same illegal motivations as the original" and harms residents, although fewer than the first banWashington - it has "same illegal motivations as the original" and harms residents, although fewer than the first ban
Minnesota - questioned the legality of the move, suggesting the Trump administration can't override the initial ban with a fresh executive order Minnesota - questioned the legality of the move, suggesting the Trump administration cannot override the initial ban with a fresh executive order
New York - "a Muslim ban by another name", said the attorney generalNew York - "a Muslim ban by another name", said the attorney general
Massachusetts - new ban "remains a discriminatory and unconstitutional attempt to make good on his campaign promise to implement a Muslim ban"Massachusetts - new ban "remains a discriminatory and unconstitutional attempt to make good on his campaign promise to implement a Muslim ban"
Hawaii - argued it would harm its Muslim population, tourism and foreign students
California - says order is an attack on people based on their religion or national originCalifornia - says order is an attack on people based on their religion or national origin
Will it be a Muslim ban? Is it a "Muslim ban"?
The fact that the countries included in the original ban are all majority Muslim lends weight to the critics's argument that the order is "anti-Muslim". This is becoming a crucial question in the legal battle.
On 14 February, a US district judge in Virginia ruled the the ban was unconstitutional because it had religious bias at its heart. On 14 February, a US district judge in Virginia ruled the first order was unconstitutional because it had religious bias at its heart.
In a bid to address religious discrimination issues, the new order removes a particular section that said refugees' claims should be prioritised "on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality". Ruling on the second version, the Hawaii court also dismissed the government's argument that the ban is not anti-Muslim because it targets all individuals from the six countries, regardless of religion, and the countries themselves represent only a small fraction of the world's Muslim population.
"The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed," the court ruling said, pointing out that the countries' populations were between 90% and 99% Muslim.
The court also cites statements made by Mr Trump, such as a 2015 press release calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".
But the Department of Justice says that a distinction should be made between things said as a candidate and as president.
In a bid to address religious discrimination issues, the second order removes a particular section that said refugees' claims should be prioritised "on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality".
Mr Trump previously said priority should be given to persecuted Christians.Mr Trump previously said priority should be given to persecuted Christians.
Will opponents continue to fight it? What happens next?
President Trump's hardline policies on immigration have sparked protests and several lawsuits around the country. The president said he would take the case "as far as it needs to go," including to the Supreme Court.
After the appeals court refused to reinstate his ban, Mr Trump tweeted: "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!" An appeal against the Hawaii decision would be expected to go next to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - the same court where a panel of three judges decided in February not to block a ruling by a Seattle court to halt the original travel ban.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer has said that Mr Trump was still confident his initial order would prevail. However, on 16 March, five of the 29 judges at that court wrote a letter saying they believed that decision was an "error", and the first executive order was "well within the powers of the presidency".
But until that time, "we will have a dual track system and make sure we implement a second executive order", he said. If the Ninth Circuit were to uphold the Hawaii court's ruling, the government could appeal to the Supreme Court.
The idea of a second order does not seem to have quelled opposition. Fresh demonstrations are being organised and civil rights groups have said they will continue to challenge the president in the courts. The Supreme Court is currently made up of four conservative and four liberal judges, awaiting the appointment of a replacement for the conservative Antonin Scalia who died last year.
It is likely the Trump administration will now be asked to justify two orders instead of one.