3

From what I understand, Trump's ban prevents entry for people from certain Muslim countries for 3 months.

What is the stated purpose of the ban?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Panda, indigochild, bytebuster, K Dog, user1530 Feb 2 '17 at 18:04

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    I think there's already an answer covering this on an older question, if someone can find it. – user4012 Feb 2 '17 at 15:00
1

What happens during these 3 months?

The official reason is that the three months is supposed to give time to determine what the longer term plan is. The idea is that they are going to develop rules that are safer than the current rules and less restrictive than a ban. What that is is indeterminate. If it weren't, they'd just pass the new rules directly. The new rules may need to be passed legislatively, not by executive fiat.

Note: some people believe that the current rules are as safe as they can practically be. But the Donald Trump administration disagrees. Further, Trump campaigned on his current stance. Not to pick one side or the other in an answer, but just to point out that it is controversial.

But what happens after 3 months?

and

Will they once again be able to enter the US as previously?

We don't know yet. The presumption is that there will be new rules and that some people will be impacted. So "as previously" is probably overstating things. But there will presumably be some process by which visas can be awarded and waivers will no longer need to be awarded on a case-by-case basis (which is what happens now).

Note that this requires additional activity. If nothing were done, then yes, the executive order would expire and things would return to normal. However, the plan seems to be for new rules to be implemented before that time. The ban could even be ended early in that case.

  • In terms of the outlook for the future, it's worth noting that the EO is under legal challenge, so it may be invalidated in whole or in part by the judiciary. – phoog Feb 2 '17 at 21:23
  • But the question is what is the reasoning behind the ban. I'm reasonably confident that Trump did not write the order under the assumption or expectation that it would be legally invalidated. By contrast, an offer to let the ban end early if Congress passes new rules promptly likely was part of his thinking. At least it would be consistent with other statements he's made about how to encourage others to deal. He's out and out stated that new, more effective (in his opinion) rules were to be created during the period of the pause. – Brythan Feb 2 '17 at 23:36
  • The question is not well focused, because in addition to asking about the reasoning, it also asks about the effects of the ban, in particular the prospects for the future ("But what happens after 3 months?" and "Will they once again be able to enter the US as previously?"). You decided to address those parts of the question, and I'm commenting on the corresponding part of your answer. – phoog Feb 2 '17 at 23:40
-2

But what happens after 3 months?

"extreme vetting", details of which aren't available yet.

What happens during these 3 months?

no entry from the affected regions.

Will they once again be able to enter the US as previously?

some of them will.

What is the real purpose of this ban?

you have to ask him. the stated purpose is to keep the bad guys out, and to give time to figure out a long-term solution.

  • Why is this downvoted? – user1530 Feb 2 '17 at 18:05
  • 1
    @blip I guess it is because the author of the answer doesn't give any source for their claims. – Philipp Feb 2 '17 at 22:05