On Oct.17, federal judge Derrick K.Watson from Hawaii halted the implementation of the third version of Trump’s travel ban temporarily,

“The ban ‘plainly discriminates based on nationality’ in a way that undercut “the founding principles of this Nation,’ and that the government had not shown that the United States’ national interests would be harmed by admitting travelers from the affected countries,” Watson said.

The Trump Administration placed these new restrictions on their controversial travel ban on Sept. 24. Instead of a more central approach, these new restrictions on travel vary from country to country. While the majority of travel is banned, certain exceptions were made for international students.

Also contrasting from the original ban, Sudan was removed from the list of affected countries, while Venezuela and North Korea were added.

The new travel restrictions were set to start on Oct.18 before the block, with a finalized list of the banned countries including: North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Chad, Libya,Yemen and Somalia.

In a statement, the White House called the new ban a “critical step toward establishing an immigration system that protects Americans’ safety and security in an era of dangerous terrorism and transnational crime.”

President Trump approved of the ban and tweeted on Sep.24th, “Making America Safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet.”

Watson and others  deemed the move as unconstitutional and fueled by discrimination against majority Muslim countries.  The ban additionally received two federal court appeals, one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th circuit and one from the 9th circuit based in California.

    The Trump Administration proceeded to ask the Supreme Court to drop the cases.Then, on Sept.24, weeks  before the block, in what was considered a major victory for the Trump Administration, the Supreme Court dismissed one of the cases, citing the ban “no longer presents a live case or controversy.”

The appeal from the 9th circuit has yet to be heard, although they are likely to dismiss this case as well in part due to the block exercised by Watson.

Nevertheless, when it was announced, the new travel ban drew strong reactions from both sides in the McLean community.

Sophomore Ian Choi believed the ban had both positive and negative implications.

“Overall, I think that the travel ban had both positives and negatives to it, and that racism had nothing to do with it whatsoever. The idea of people of large quantities of refugees or allowing potentially dangerous people into the US could have created disaster, such as many European nations where refugees and people from these countries commit large amounts of crimes,” Choi said. “Personally the move was poorly executed, and I disagreed with the vagueness and countries that it targeted, with many countries not deserving to be on that list.”

Sophomore Noor Saloum strongly disagreed with the potential move.

“Not only is Trump’s ban on immigration the U.S. absurd, but it is inhumane. Although the restrictions on the travel ban have been revised, the fact that six of the nine countries affected contain a Muslim majority signals that the Trump Administration is still determined to pursue its anti-Muslim, extremist agenda,” Saloum said. “The topic of Trumps travel ban is not merely an issue of immigration policy, but rather one of basic human rights.”

The move affected many students in McLean who were born or have families in countries on the Travel Ban.

Sophomore Sooren Ghodsi from Iran said the move personally affected his ability to see his family.

“My family are unable to get their visas and travel to the United States. Knowing how busy I am with everything I have, it is hard for me to travel to Iran often. This move is still a majority Muslim ban,” Ghodsi said.

When asked about what he would say to the Trump administration about the potential move, Ghodsi said,

“Think about the lives of the millions of people and families  you are affecting.”