President Trump’s revised travel restrictions on six Muslim-majority countries that were unveiled Monday are an improvement over the original, hastily conceived and implemented rules that were struck down by the courts and faced several additional challenges.

The revisions should render some of those court challenges moot. But one of the key concerns — that it unfairly targets Muslims — could still be tested. The new restrictions eliminate a provision that explicitly protected religious minorities, but that may not be enough.

We also continue to fundamentally question the need for a temporary 90-ban. Where is the urgency? Federal judges who blocked Trump’s first executive order cited the lack of a national security justification throughout their opinions.

We certainly support improving security protocols, particularly in nations that are deemed failed states and consequently have dubious vetting procedures. But the fact remains that the terrorist incidents that have occurred in the United States in the past decade or more have not been carried out by people who have entered this country illegally.

MORE: Key revisions to travel restrictions

MORE: Full text of Trump's immigration order

MORE: Poll: 50 percent believe Trump should move on from travel ban

MORE: Democrats say revised travel order still a 'Muslim ban'

An analysis by Charles Kurzman, a professor at the University of North Carolina, found that since 9/11, 18 of the 36 Muslim extremists who have engaged in attacks inside the United States were born in the United States, while 14 immigrated to the U.S. as children and would not have been stopped by the new vetting process. None of those who engaged in terrorist attacks in the U.S. came from the banned nations. Kurzman further found that Muslim extremists were responsible for just 16 out of America’s 240,000 murders since Sept. 11, 2001.

The new travel restrictions do eliminate some of the more problematic provisions. The order doesn’t apply to green card holders, and dual nationals from those countries who are traveling on a passport from a different country aren’t affected by the order. Iraq has been removed from the original list of seven banned countries of Iran, Libya, Somalia — deemed state sponsors of terrorism — and Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The indefinite ban on refugees from Syria also has been reduced to a 120-day ban, requiring review and renewal.

Refugees and people granted asylum aren’t covered by the new travel order. Refugees and those granted asylum who haven’t yet arrived in the U.S. will be admitted if the travel was formally scheduled by the State Department. The order does not revoke previously approved visas. Travelers with multiple-entry visas are allowed to enter and leave the U.S. within the effective dates of the visa.

Also the State Department will consider waivers to visas in conjunction with visa applications. Waivers are granted if the traveler can document that his or her arrival is in the national interest, will not pose a threat to national security, and that denying entry during the suspension period will cause undue hardship.

But the travel restrictions, eased or not, simpy aren’t necessary. By all means, tighten the vetting. But that can be done, and should be done, without imposing a temporary ban.

MORE EDITORIALS