{"id":36,"date":"2018-01-19T14:36:34","date_gmt":"2018-01-19T19:36:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/?page_id=36"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:10:22","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:10:22","slug":"non-discrimination-in-refugee-and-asylum-law-against-travel-ban-1-0-and-2-0","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-31-issue-3-spring-2017\/non-discrimination-in-refugee-and-asylum-law-against-travel-ban-1-0-and-2-0\/","title":{"rendered":"Non-Discrimination in Refugee and Asylum Law (Against Travel Ban 1.0 and 2.0)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This article explores the tension between Executive Orders No. 13,769 and No. 13,780\u2014colloquially known as \u201ctravel ban\u201d 1.0 and 2.0\u2014and the deep non-discrimination norms in refugee and asylum law. I engage in a close read of the legislative history of the Refugee Act of 1980; analyze the 1951 Refugee Convention and subsequent international human rights treaties; provide a novel and in-depth analysis of U.S. statutory, regulatory, and case law interpretations of the refugee definition via the theoretical framework of non-discrimination; and examine the structural aspects and standards governing refugee admissions. The clear picture that emerges from these sources points in a single direction\u2014the government cannot engage in invidious discrimination against refugees or asylum seekers on the basis of religion or national origin. My analysis fills a gap in the literature as the academy and the public continue to debate the permissibility of the travel ban and its iterations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This article explores the tension between Executive Orders No. 13,769 and No. 13,780\u2014colloquially known as \u201ctravel ban\u201d 1.0 and 2.0\u2014and the deep non-discrimination norms in refugee and asylum law. I [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"parent":61,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-36","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/36","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/36\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1519,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/36\/revisions\/1519"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/61"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}