The Trump administration has unveiled a fine distinction in familial connections in an attempt to partially implement the travel ban on citizens of six predominantly Muslim countries. The White House appears to be pursuing a yes-and-no approach and this could well make confusion worse confounded.

It thus comes about that while parents, including in-laws, are considered “close family,” grandparents are not. This is bound to impinge on the structure of family life, especially in orthodox societies.

The contrived logic has been extended to cover stepsiblings and “half-siblings” who will be allowed to step into the US, but not nieces or nephews.

It might sound uncharitable, but nevertheless it is true that this is esssentially a recipe for splitting family. There is little doubt that the Trump administration moved a little too aggressively on Thursday to fulfill one of the President’s most contentious campaign promises.

In the process, it has been impervious to the societal mores of the countries that stand to be affected. The connections within an extended family are now at a discount, and it is pretty obvious that the administration has set about implementing Trump’s travel ban after the Supreme Court cleared its partial revival.

In the net, it will be an open-and-shut border; the American border will be shut unless specific individuals can prove they have close family members living in the United States, or are coming to attend a university or accept a job offer.

Thursday’s spin on the ban order has predictably been greeted with stout condemnation generally. Indeed, the White House has been accused of violating the Supreme Court’s directive to exempt anyone with a “bona fide” family connection to the United States.

Civil rights groups have vowed to challenge what they called was a renewed attempt by Mr. Trump to keep Muslims out of the country. Sharp and almost unacceptable has been the distinction between parents and grandparents in a family that sustains the traditional structure.

Thursday’s decision by the administration to revive and aggressively enforce another version of the President’s travel ban will almost certainly re-ignite the debate about borders in the Supreme Court, most particularly when the judges are scheduled to decide the legal fate of Mr. Trump’s efforts to restrict entry by particular groups.

The administration’s latest move could prompt another wave of litigation as advocates for those trying to enter the United States ask courts to halt enforcement of the ban. At the core of the dispute is an issue of profound sociological import, pre-eminently the family connection in the context of the Supreme Court ruling on “bona fide relationships”. The second has been accorded short shrift by the White House, with the executive order taking precedence over the judiciary’s.