Opinion Trump’s travel ban has come full circle
It is expected to withstand legal scrutiny because entry restrictions have now been tied to the broader spectrum of illegal immigration, national security, rising gang violence, visa overstay, the possibility of conflict in other countries reaching the shores of the US, and the alleged rise of antisemitism
It remains to be seen whether the policies of the second Trump administration are consolidated over successive presidencies or if they will be reversed in the next 30-odd months. (File) All the build-up around immigration in the last 100 days of the second Donald Trump administration has now culminated in the US President’s decision to sign an executive order banning the entry of citizens from 12 countries into the US. These countries are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Trump’s executive order lists seven additional countries — Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela — for partial restriction of the entry of nationals. The travel ban, in some ways, overlaps with the one in 2017, which the Joe Biden administration eventually reversed. The renewed ban has new facets.
New additions to the list — such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and Turkmenistan — suggest that Trump has focused on entry restrictions on people from regions engulfed in conflict or those reeling from the impact of past ones. This slight shift from the last ban (seen as a “Muslim” ban) has both security and legal considerations. Trump has invoked national security, counterterrorism, and public safety provisions to justify it.
Specifically, Trump has based his decision on Executive Order 14161, signed on January 20: Protecting the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats. It says that the administration “must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.”
The legal basis for the ban appears to be stronger than the last one. It is expected to withstand legal scrutiny because entry restrictions have now been tied to the broader spectrum of illegal immigration, national security, rising gang violence, visa overstay, the possibility of conflict in other countries reaching the shores of the US, and the alleged rise of antisemitism. In what could turn out to be a strong precedent in this case, the US Supreme Court had upheld Trump’s travel ban in 2018.
Although this move was in the pipeline for months, the recent attack in Boulder, Colorado by an Egyptian immigrant on a group of people protesting for the release of the hostages taken by Hamas, may have hastened the decision. Trump’s decision to take action against the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, along with deportations of illegal immigrants with criminal records to high-security prisons in other countries such as El Salvador, also reflects his urgency to revise the socio-political milieu of the US.
Trump has referred to Europe as a case in point and how marked changes have ensued in the continent in the last decade due to mass migration, especially from regions of conflict such as Syria. US Vice President J D Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year exemplified this policy assertion, along with one to deviate from its historical relationship with Europe. It remains to be seen whether the policies of the second Trump administration are consolidated over successive presidencies or if they will be reversed in the next 30-odd months. Apart from the fact that much of the intended policy changes will be contested in US courts, the first serious test will be the midterm elections. Until then, an oversized executive is certainly redrawing the arc of American politics, both at home and abroad.
For a nation built and strengthened by immigrants, some of the Trump administration’s immigration and visa policies risk upending the American Dream for millions who look to the US with hope. A policy of bans could also undermine America’s competitive edge in skilled labour and manufacturing — especially at a time when Trump is pushing for increased domestic manufacturing and onshoring. While it may be time to revisit some of America’s longstanding immigration policies, Trump must be cautious not to compromise security for short-term economic gains, particularly by overlooking states that openly sponsor terrorism, such as Pakistan.
The writer is Visiting Fellow, ORF America and Deputy Director, Strategic Studies Programme, ORF
Share
