On March 6, the latest of events in what has been a keystone for the Trump administration, the immigration ban, was revised and is on its way to full implementation. This new order is in essence a more moderate version of the previous one, removing some countries from the ban list, allowing the acceptance of current visa holders, and the ending of an indefinite Syrian refugee ban.

One of the key components to the revised executive order was the removal of Iraq from the ban list. The Trump administration has claimed its reasons for doing so are rooted in Iraqi cooperation with the United States in fighting terrorist groups such as ISIS (as well as others like Hizballah and Hamas backed by Iran, which the administration has pointed out has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984), and strong diplomatic and military presence in the country. The Trump administration hopes that a continued relationship between the two countries can be beneficial in the continued fight against radical Islamic terrorism, which has been a key justification for the bans.

Another key part to the revision was the ending of an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. Rather, they will be subject to the same temporary 120-day ban of all refugees. This seems to have helped remove some tension that was built around the previous ban, which was displayed in the major protests across the nation, claiming the ban, particularly the clauses regarding refugee exclusion, were un-American and unconstitutional. Also, immigrants that have already been awarded asylum in the United States have been allowed to remain.

Another important change was the ending of favoritism for minority religions. From the inception of the previous ban, many believed this clause was meant to favor Christians and Jews, who make up a minority in these predominantly Muslim nations, to be allowed premier access when possible. This had been essential to the premise proposed by those against the ban that it serves as a racist, Islamophobic order. Now, those qualified for entry cannot be discriminated against based on religious status.

Another major change in the executive order was its effect on visa holders. Prior to the revision, most visa holders were denied entry into the United States, but with the current revision, all those who currently possess a visa will be allowed entry. This change has been particularly helpful to those coming in on student and workers’ visas.

Other than the changes mentioned above, the constituents of the previous executive order have remained the same. New immigrants that have not met the required qualification will still be denied entry, and there is still a ban on six of the seven original nations. President Trump and his administration have continued to reference the same laws and constitutional rights to enact the ban, and the ban’s opponents still reference the same laws to overrule it.

Within our own school, opinions on the issue continue to be divided as they were with the original ban. “I like the concept of it,” says Cam Hebert, a senior here at SBRHS. “However, I don’t agree on the way he’s going about it,” saying the countries that he has banned or allowed don’t seem to fit a concise or reasonable pattern. Lauren Soleimani, a junior, who herself is of Iranian descent, believes the ban “is the same thing as the original, except that it has become less objectionable in a court of law.” But despite the strengthening of its legal basis, she is still an opponent of it.

But on March 15, just hours before the new executive order was set to be enacted, two federal judges, one from Hawaii and another form Maryland, suspended the ban, citing religious discrimination. “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,” said Judge Derrick Watson, the Hawaii judge responsible for the ban’s suspension. President Trump has claimed the acts of blocking both of his travel bans are “an unprecedented judicial overreach.” The President has refused to back down to the opposition he has faced concerning his travel ban, and has made it very clear that he is willing to take the issue to the supreme court if necessary.

Overall, this new ban has allowed more people from the affected nations to enter the United States, a concession to the ban’s opponents that may resolve some of the issues at hand. But after a month of divisive opinions of both support and rejection for the ban, topped by its shocking overruling by three district judges, it can only be guessed at whether or not the new revised version will ease the tension, or further strain and divide our nation.