Shortly after taking office in January, President Trump signed an executive order that banned immigrants and visa holders from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US for 90 days. The countries affected by this ban included Libya, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Somalia. Trump’s executive order, which was issued on Jan. 27, was met with much criticism and was blocked by a Seattle judge, James Robart. Robart called the ban unlawful.
Trump, who vowed to appeal against the “outrageous” order issued by Robart, revised Executive Order 13769, which is also referred to as the travel or Muslim ban. Upon revision, travel ban 2.0 blocks immigrants from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the country. These countries are the same as mentioned above; the only difference is that Iraq was removed from the new order. Unlike the first travel ban, travel ban 2.0 allows those who already had temporary visas and permanent residency permits to enter the country.
However, this was not enough of a revision, as two federal judges have already blocked the revised travel ban. The ruling by a federal judge in Hawaii on Mar. 15 resulted in a temporary restraining order nationwide, just a few hours before the ban was to go in effect on Mar. 16. Washington and Massachusetts have now joined Hawaii in the fight against travel ban 2.0.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey strongly oppose the ban and has now joined in with other states to fight it. According to a report from CNN, attorney generals from Massachusetts, New York and Oregon all confirmed on Thursday that they would also join the lawsuit in Seattle.
Massachusetts legislators are adamant that the new travel ban is very much the same as the original order issued on Jan. 27. While the White House stated that the ban on immigrants from the six countries, as well as refugees from any country, was about keeping Americans safe from terrorism, many disagreed and thought it was only a discriminatory ban that seeks to stop Muslims from entering the country. Many critics of the ban have even used Trump’s campaign speeches as proof that his ban was indeed nothing but discrimination against a religious group. As a presidential candidate, Trump repeatedly promised his supporters that he would deliver a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the country. 
In a statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Healey said, “The President’s travel ban was already rejected by the courts and abandoned in defeat by his attorneys. This watered-down redraft is a clear attempt to resurrect a discredited order and fulfill a discriminatory and unconstitutional campaign promise.” She continued, “My office remains opposed to this misguided policy and will consider all legal options to protect our residents, our institutions, and our businesses in Massachusetts.”
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh also reported in a statement, “While this administration is packaging this as a new and improved executive order, it is the same ban that discriminates against the same people, it was wrong the first time and it’s wrong the second. In Boston, we will always stand by our immigrant community.”
Governor Charlie Baker is also against the ban and has spoken out against it a few times. He also wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly in February about the possible threats to the economy if rushed immigration plans are implemented. However, even though Governor Baker had not yet seen the order, he did mention that he would look at it thoroughly.  His exact words were that he would “take a good look at” it.