Introduction to the Issue
The Trump travel ban includes a series of executive actions that were enacted in 2017 by the President of the United States. With the first order, significant restrictions on travel to the US were imposed on the citizens of Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and Somalia (American Council on Education). However, legal challenges and protests that took place after the initial order prompted the second-order that amended some of the pro-second-order first order as well as removed Iraq from the list. The final adjustments to the ban were associated with imposing additional restrictions on the citizens of Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea, while Sudan was no longer included in the list. While the rationale behind the ban was associated with maintaining national security, it is problematic and exclusionary because it targets individuals of predominantly Muslim religion, which is discriminatory and goes against the established international guidelines on equality, inclusion, and the freedom to practice any religion.
It is important to have an in-depth understanding of the ban and its potential impact on the international community because there are already considerations to implement further orders associated with travel restrictions, as mentioned by Sabur for The Telegraph. The aim of the current paper is to explore the ban and review the implications of its enactment for the affected individuals and the global community as a whole. Furthermore, policy recommendations will be made for improving the situation and finding ways to reduce the extreme levels of discrimination that have been established by the policy.
The immediate context for imposing the travel ban on the citizens of specific countries is the declining economy of the United States. According to Trump, the government wants Americans to “have the jobs and the healthcare. And it’s a very powerful order” (qtd. in Pilkington and Rushe). Moreover, the current President is planning to attain re-election in 2020, and strengthening the economy, even during the pandemic, could guarantee him votes from the population. However, since the ban is applicable to the majority of Muslim countries, the question remains as to whether it was enacted to prevent immigration, in general, to give Americans jobs and healthcare or prevent Muslim immigration, which is a different issue in itself. For example, Iran was affected by the ban the most, with the number of immigrant visas declining in 2018 by 92% compared to 2017 (Niayesh). Policy recommendations are needed for addressing the issue because of the adverse influence on the lives of people who are prevented from seeking life opportunities in a country that can benefit from their knowledge, skills, and experiences.
Recommendations for Changing the Policy on Travel Ban
First Proposal: The Option to Appeal
The first policy recommendation is to decrease significantly the restrictions on traveling associated with the ban. While such a solution seems simple, the only way in which a Muslim travel ban could be fixed is that no travel ban should be imposed. Courts should oppose unconstitutional attempts to challenge the commitment of the US to freedom and equality among religions. The government action initiated by Trump has an intent to discriminate based on religion, and it is unconstitutional (Blackman). The proposed policy recommendation is associated with providing the opportunity of appealing the rejection of entering the US in court. Therefore, when individuals of Muslim backgrounds are refused from entering the country, they should receive a definite decision from the court as to whether the refusal holds ground, and there is no way in changing it.
While the process may take some additional time, it establishes a window of opportunity that immigrant individuals from other countries can use to their advantage. At this time, it is unlikely that the travel ban will get less strict due to the restrictions on entering the US associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (Godin). However, when the situation with the virus gets under control, and it is possible to travel to the US, the citizens affected by the Muslim ban should be given an opportunity to appeal the unconstitutional restriction on them entering the country. It is imperative to break from the radical rejection of immigrants and provide some leeway that is supported by the principles laid out in the Constitution.
Second Proposal: The Congress Action
The second policy recommendation includes the increased involvement of Congress in challenging the travel ban. Ever since the implementation of the policy, it remains “a persistent moral stain on the United States, yet a potentially great moment for American democracy” (Woodsome). At this moment, the system works against families living between the US and other countries, which means that they cannot be reunited. The prohibition of religious discrimination with the immigration system is a call for Congress to act according to the Constitution. The Republican members of Congress have the opportunity to join the Democratic representatives in supporting the No Ban Act or other initiatives targeted at ensuring that individuals are not subjected to travel discrimination on the basis of their religious background.
Third Proposal: The Public Action
For ensuring the reduced influence of the travel ban and improve the opportunities of immigrant individuals to seek a new life in the US, public action is imperative. The cooperation between progressive organizations that work toward preserving the constitutional rights of individuals. They should facilitate the Congressional oversight of the Muslim ban, including the requirements on appropriate reporting. In addition, public action and the efforts of non-profit organizations are imperative for reporting the waivers issued to the applicants of visas to facilitate better accountability. In this case, transparency is imperative for offering a foundation necessary for demonstrating the need for repealing the ban or significantly adjusting it (“NIAC Takes in the Muslim Ban”).
In the current situation with the pandemic, establishing accountability for the actions of the government in terms of refusing the entry of Muslim citizens will be complicated. To protect the country from the risks of further spreading of the virus, the government has the right to ban the entry of international citizens into the country. However, it is imperative for the public and relevant organizations to continue scrutinizing the travel ban. In light of the pandemic, the government can use the present state of affairs as a reason to continue rejecting the entry of Muslim individuals to the United States. It is imperative that the public is active and facilitates debate on whether such actions are representative of the United States’ spirit.
Discussion on the Problem
Had there not been a global pandemic of the COVID-19 virus, it could have been possible to facilitate more radical actions targeted at reducing the adverse impact of the Muslim travel ban. At this time, the government is imposing further restrictions on travel because of the spreading of the virus, and, with the American and global economy facing tremendous challenges, the ban can be used as another method of keeping work for the citizens of the country instead of giving it to immigrants. What such a perspective fails to address is that immigrants can offer an invaluable contribution to the economy of the US with their unique knowledge, experience, and skills. Discriminating against the potential great workers that can establish businesses or work for American companies is ineffective, especially at times when the economy is under significant scrutiny.
In addition to being ineffective and not offering any benefit for the American economy, the Muslim travel ban contributes to the exasperation of foreign affairs of the United States with other countries. The “compelling need to provide for the nation’s security” is rather a cover-up for the blatant discrimination against the representatives of the Muslim religion (Zurcher). Because of this, it is imperative to facilitate a policy adjustment that would integrate the option of appealing the rejection to enter the country. Such a change will not eliminate the ban completely, as a change in country leadership is necessary to achieve that, but facilitate accountability and transparency regarding the decisions of the government. According to Wofsy, “the only way to fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban.” However, the appeal option is a window of hope and opportunity that will involve the US courts that will decide whether an individual has a moral right to enter the country as an immigrant. Since the ban goes against the anti-discriminatory provisions of the Constitution, a more open process is required.
Concluding Remarks
The travel ban established by President Trump in 2017 represents an attack on the human right of individuals to practice their religion since the citizens of Muslim countries are the ones that are mostly affected by the policy. Families got separated as it has become harder for them to get reunited because of the ban, with the numbers of immigrant visas being issued reducing by more than 70% for the majority of affected countries. Even having a waiver that is given to those undergoing hardships and requiring to be with loved ones in the United States does not guarantee to enter the country. This way of excluding people based on their religious beliefs should be challenged by the population of the US as well as the global community.
Unfortunately, solving the travel ban is only possible by eliminating it. The three policy recommendations are all targeted at decreasing the adverse impact of the ban and challenging the system that prevents the entry of immigrants who seek work opportunities or want to reunite with their relatives. For some, the Muslim ban is an effort to reduce the inflow of individuals who pose a potential threat to national security, but the reality is far from that. Regular people that have no connection to radical ideas associated with Islam are being affected the most. While the current pandemic limits any possible challenges to the travel ban, it is important not to forget about its impact and continue raising awareness of the discriminatory policy.
References
- American Council on Education. “Trump Issues New Travel Ban, Clarifies Potential Impact on Student Visa Holders.” ACE, 2017. Web.
- Blackman, Josh. “The Legality of the 3/6/17 Executive Order, Part III: The Establishment Clause.” Lawfare, 2017. Web.
- Godin, Melissa. “Why Public Health Experts Say Trump’s Travel Ban Won’t Curb the Spread of COVID-19 in the US.” Time, 2020.
- “NIAC Takes on the Muslim Ban.” Niacouncil.
- Niayesh, Vahid. “Statistics show that Trump’s “Travel Ban” Was Always a Muslim Ban.” Quartz, 2019.Web.
- Pilkington, Ed, and Dominic Rushe. “Operation Reopen America Are We About to Witness a Second Historic Failure of Leadership from Trump?”The Guardian, 2020. Web.
- Sabur, Rozina. “Donald Trump’s Immigration Ban: Who Is Affected and What Will the Impact Be?” The Telegraph, 2020. Web.
- Wofsy, Cody. “Why the Only Way to Fix the Muslim Ban Is Not to Have a Muslim Ban.” ACLU, 2017.
- Woodsome, Kate. “One Man Can’t Change the Travel Ban, but Congress Could.” The Washington Post, 2020. Web.
- Zurcher, Anthony. “Big Win for Trump and His Travel Ban.” BBC News, 2017. Web.