For those uniformed on this issue, Trump placed a travel ban which suspends the entire refugee program for 4 months - it cuts the number of refugees admitted in this fiscal year down to less than half (only 50,000 instead of 110,000). It doesn't allow immigrants from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen for 3 months (the first travel ban included Iraq on the list, the new one does not).
Chemerinsky voices his loud and proud opinion and states that the new ban is "wrong, illegal and irrational." I must say that I have to agree with him. Chemerinsky states what everyone else seems to be thinking: it is wrong to assume that a person is dangerous because of their religion, origin, race or ethnicity and it's irrational to believe refugees fleeing persecution are a threat to our national security.
He goes on to state the specific differences between ban 1.0 and 2.0, clearly pointing out that Iraq was oddly not included in the new ban, when Trump administration goes out of their way to say they are "worried about countries compromised by terrorism" (Iraq being the home of Islamic State). Chemerinsky calls this nonsensical.
Chemerinsky has high hopes that courts across the country will soon find this unconstitutional. He goes on to state that "the president clearly isn’t versed in the Bill of Rights, he should at least consider reading the 1st Amendment. It’s just a few lines so a long attention span isn’t necessary," which I found to be comically true, since it really is unconstitutional to authorize religious discrimination and as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Trump should know this.
To close this article, Chemerinsky states one good thing about the new ban: it "respects" those who already have a lawful right to entry - aka those who have visas and citizenships won't be banned from entering the United States.
