I am Maureen Cavanaugh. Monday, September 25. Top story in Midday Edition. California Attorney General offices reviewing a possible challenge to President Trump's latest travel ban. The new band replaces the new plan portions of which expired yesterday. This travel ban more nuance than the previous version leaving the nation of Sudan off the list and chat, North Korea, and Venezuela join to discuss these new restrictions is, legal analyst and partner. Welcome back. Thank you good to be here. One of the big changes in this travel ban is the restrictions are to be enforced not for 90 days, or 120 days, but until further notice. What are some of the other differences? For one thing, the onset and one of the countries have been dropped altogether. And for another reason this is more tailored. That is to say there are some restrictions that apply to some countries. Not to others. For example, I ran. Is okay for student in cultural leases but not for business. So, this is a country by country restriction. The new band both a broader and more narrow than the original one in effect. What do these nations need to do a provide to the U. S. in order to get off travel ban? Is important to understand why they made this in the first place. There were three basic issues that the homeland security looked at. For purposes of deciding who gets on. Information sharing in national security risk. Having to do with how secure passports work. To get off a list, according to a White House frequently asked question, but they provided on the website, the country need to provide information necessary to ensure there is a proper betting. And screening of the nationals. And particular concerns that were addressed in the order, have been properly addressed, so they can get off of it. That will be a very tough burden to meet and ride of the care and that went into coming up with a list. By 200 countries that were originally considered for the van. Supporters of this band say the inclusion of to not majority Muslim nations, North Korea and Venezuela. Nullifying the argument this is in essence a Muslim man. Do you think this travel ban may have a better chance of holding up in court? To answer your second question, do I think it has a better chance of court? Yes but I do not think it has not to do with two non-Muslim majority countries. With respect to Venezuela, only certain government officials a part of a border sanction and turmoil in the country. Secondly not very many people coming from North Korea. The bottom line, remember the basis for throwing out the travel and, in addition to the Muslim language from the campaign trail, also having to do with whether the president exceeded authority under the immigration act. And whether sufficient care in this new order to overcome only some of the objectives. And some courts that have suspended the band. Acknowledge and use to issue orders suspending the van. At the same time has it been viewed as overly broad? There is still a real question about if this exceeds the president's authority. In a variety of different issues that are still very much remain in play and also a question of getting back to your earlier question. About whether the religious comments still taint this new water in large part -- order. In addition to these non-Muslim countries. And sufficient to overcome. A lot of other objections raised I this new order that were not present with the old one. All will be considered when the Supreme Court has an argument on this. In a bed a few weeks. Can you tell us some of the new problems with the order? Smacked one of the problem, it is indefinite. The question whether the president is coming up to identify the detrimental interest. He has a broad authority under the act to exclude entry of any class of aliens into the United States that would be detrimental. The question, whether the motives and the methods in the underlying information that were used, to determine this latest iteration of executive orders, will prove sufficient? And we have not talked about the refugee to which has not been affected. That will remain in place. The Supreme Court will have arguments October 10. Many analysts believe that the travel ban issue with the exception of refugee time span, as you mentioned, they feel that travel ban issue would be moved by October 10 because 90 days would have asked our. Does this latest proclamation change things? It does. But whether it changes things in a way that it removes issues before the Supreme Court. With respect to the exclusion of certain classes of immigrants from certain countries. Countries that are involved in this is indefinite duration. The other one expired on Sunday. Which is why the new one is issued. I suspect though the underlying issues are sufficiently durable. The Supreme Court will address these issues. Assuming they can get over the basic issue of standing whether these people have the right to challenge in the first place. They are a bunch of issues you can expect to hear when the Supreme Court raises this issue on October 10. And some that we may not be able to anticipate right now. Speaking with Dan income legal analyst. Thank you. Good to be with you. The supreme court canceled argument set for October 10 in the dispute over President Donald Trump travel ban because of the new policy not by the administration. The justices are asking about sides to weigh by October 5 about what to do with the case.
President Donald Trump has signed a proclamation imposing strict new restrictions on travelers from a handful of countries, including five that were covered by his expiring travel ban. Administration officials say the new measures are required to keep the nation safe.
The indefinite restrictions apply to citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and North Korea. As part of the presidential proclamation signed Sunday, the U.S. will also bar the entry of certain Venezuelan government officials and their immediate families.
The changes will take effect October 18.
The announcement came the same day that Trump's temporary ban on visitors from six Muslim-majority countries was set to expire, 90 days after it went into effect. That ban had barred citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen who lacked a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" from entering the U.S. Only one of those countries, Sudan, will no longer be subject to travel restrictions.
RELATED: Protesters Gather At San Diego Airport To Protest Trump’s Immigration Order
"Making America Safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet," Trump tweeted late Sunday after the new policy was announced.
Unlike the first iteration of Trump's travel ban, which sparked chaos at airports across the country and a flurry of legal challenges after being hastily written with little input outside the White House, officials stressed they had been working for months on the new rules, in collaboration with various agencies and in conversation with foreign governments.
To limit confusion, valid visas would not be revoked as a result of the proclamation. The order also permits, but does not guarantee, case-by-case waivers for citizens of the affected countries.
The restrictions are targeted at countries that the Department of Homeland Security says fail to share sufficient information with the U.S. or haven't taken necessary security precautions.
DHS has spent recent months working to develop a new security baseline, which includes factors such as whether countries issue electronic passports with biometric information, report lost or stolen passports to INTERPOL, an international law enforcement body, and share information about travelers' terror-related and criminal histories.
Citizens of countries that don't meet the standard will face restrictions until they make changes to bring them into compliance.
The new rules include the suspension of all immigrant visas for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen and Somalia, and the suspension of non-immigrant visas, such as for business and tourism, to nationals of Chad, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Yemen.
Citizens of Iran will not be eligible for tourism and business visas, but remain eligible for student and cultural exchange visas if they undergo additional scrutiny. Such additional scrutiny will also be required for Somali citizens applying for all non-immigrant visas.
Critics have accused Trump of overstepping his legal authority and violating the U.S. Constitution's protections against religious bias each time he has ordered new travel restrictions.
And the inclusion of Venezuela and North Korea appeared to be an attempt to block challenges from advocacy groups and others who have called the restrictions a ban on Muslims. Trump during his campaign called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
The U.S. had already imposed wide-ranging sanctions on certain high-ranking Venezuelan government officials to protest the government's attempts to consolidate power.
"The fact that Trump has added North Korea — with few visitors to the U.S. — and a few government officials from Venezuela doesn't obfuscate the real fact that the administration's order is still a Muslim ban," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been challenging the ban in court. "President Trump's original sin of targeting Muslims cannot be cured by throwing other countries onto his enemies list."
But administration officials argue the measure is necessary to keep Americans safe.
