After a legal ruse caused the demise of Donald Trump’s original travel ban on the nations of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, the president on Monday signed off on an improved executive order that contains some specific modifications. The original travel ban was heavily criticized on the Left, and the order is almost universally acknowledged to have been hastily and poorly rolled out. However, the ban was not inherently unconstitutional. The most questionable part of the ban was the inclusion of legal residents. In the new executive order, there are no prohibitions on green card holders.

The countries affected are the same, less one nation — Iraq. As the Associated Press explains, “The White House dropped Iraq from the list of targeted countries following pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which noted Iraq’s role in fighting the Islamic State group.” According to The Washington Times, some additional details include:

• “Visitors now will be banned for 90 days from six Muslim-majority countries on the list: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

• "During the ban, the administration plans to develop an extreme vetting program for all foreign visitors to the U.S., including a biometric entry/exit system to identify who is arriving and departing the country.

• "It also removed the original order’s exemptions for religious minorities, namely Christians, from the targeted countries, and it eliminated a permanent ban on refugees from Syria. …

• "The 90-day ban on visitors and the 120-day halt to refugee resettlement this time will phase in over a 10-day period, taking full effect March 16.”

Don’t expect any of this to appease leftists, though. Chuck Schumer called it “mean-spirited and un-American.” Democrats are fundamentally and irrationally opposed to any restrictions Trump makes to border policies, even when he’s doing his best to compromise. On the whole, the last version was constitutionally sound. And there is literally nothing in this executive order the courts can justifiably render unsound or unconstitutional. It is a temporary ban, after all. And for those judges who do find fault, you can be sure they’re engaging in political gamesmanship.

(Edited.)