After the tragic shooting of two National Guard members in Washington last week — reportedly by a 29-year-old Afghan who worked with the CIA in the US’s two-decade-long fight against the Taliban and obtained asylum in April — the Trump administration has paused immigration applications from 19 countries already subjected to a partial travel ban imposed in June. National security concerns must, of course, be addressed by any administration, especially in the wake of a deplorable attack. But President Donald Trump’s latest restrictions are, in essence, a political response. Rife with contradictions, the migration ban demonises entire populations and denies legal immigration as well as asylum.
In imposing the June travel ban, Trump cited an attack on a group of Jewish people in Colorado by a man originally from Egypt. Yet Egypt — a vital US partner — is absent from the list of the 19 banned countries. US government data shows that in 2023, more than 20,000 visitors from Spain overstayed their US visas, exceeding the combined total for the seven African countries included in the ban. Spain, too, is missing from the list. So, even in its stated aims, Trump’s migration policy misses the target. There is also little to no support from counterterrorism experts for the idea that travel bans reduce the terror threat. During Trump’s first stint at the White House, 52 former US national security, intelligence, and foreign policy officials presented a compelling argument against the President’s 2017 “Muslim ban”. They pointed out that blanket nationality-based restrictions damage America’s long-term security interests by undermining cooperation.
Nothing meaningfully links the 19 countries on the list except what appears to be the Trump administration’s inclination to discriminate against people based on where they were born, the colour of their skin (the US will reportedly prioritise refugee applications from white Afrikaners), and ethnicity. Scapegoating entire nationalities for the actions of one person could tear families apart and deny people fleeing persecution a safe haven. The restrictions go against what Trump has himself claimed — he opposes only “illegal” migration . They undermine America’s interests at a time when the economic costs of the Trump administration’s hostility to migrants are becoming apparent.
