Trump’s travel ban: Protecting the nation or playing politics?

Donald Trump revived one of the signature policies of his first term by introducing a ban on people from certain countries entering the United States. This time, he's targeting citizens of 12 countries. From June 9th, they won't be able to enter as immigrants or as tourists unless they already have a valid visa. The U.S. president said the measure is designed to make America safer. It's reminiscent, of course, of a similar ban introduced during Trump 1, which was amended several times before it was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. Today I am signing a new executive order placing travel restrictions on countries including Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Libya and numerous others. Another day, another executive order from America's commander in chief. This time, banning citizens of 12 countries including Afghanistan, Myanmar and Iran, calling them dangerous foreign actors. Donald Trump cited the recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado as one of the reasons for the ban. Despite the suspect being Egyptian, a country not on the list. The White House claimed the move was due to people overstaying their visas. Those from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial travel restrictions. In truth, being in the United States is a great risk for anyone, not just for Venezuelans. If you're a fool, then go to the United States. At California's LAX airport, travelers had differing views on the president's announcement. Not all of them are bad people, but the reality is that, you know, to be 100% safe, sometimes the best thing, at least in the short term, might be to, you know, mandate a certain travel ban. At a personal level, I think we should not have any ban on people traveling in the world. One creator, one community is a human being, so we should be able to travel with a rightful I like Trump and what he's doing, but I don't know the reasons for what he's doing this for. But I like his policies on immigration as far as the border and everything, with drugs and fentanyl and stuff. Like Trump's 2017 so-called Muslim ban, this latest executive order will likely face significant legal challenges. There are also exemptions to the proclamation, including for diplomats and athletes. And the White House says all visas issued before midnight on Monday, when the law takes effect, will remain valid. Let's look at this with Alan Orr. He's an experienced immigration lawyer and joins us from Eagleville, Tennessee. Welcome to DW. Let's start with the president's thinking here. He says this ban will keep America safe. What do you think? So I think that's a little bit of a fiction because if our State Department, as it's set up now, hasn't kept us safe for all this time, then how is this ban actually going to change that when there's no real threat? When you sort of look at the numbers and the chances that someone from any of these countries would ever do something that would be a serious threat to the United States, the statistics are like one in 3.6 million of a chance. So it's much less just selling something. It's a political distraction. That would be my next question. So if you believe that this is not to make America safe, what do you believe the thinking behind it to be? So I think it's a distraction from some of the economic failties that he's having right now with the bills in Congress. But also, I think it's part of what his promise was to sort of go against certain nations. And right now, this is a very starched hit against Africa and Muslim countries, which he also plans to close eight embassies in Africa this year. So he's sort of fulfilling his promise with saying there's a certain type of immigrant that is welcome in this country. I remind everyone that in order to come to the United States, you go through a very rigorous vetting system through the State Department, which is one of the best in the world. So to sort of say that now you have to ban everyone rather than vet them and deny them, as we've done for almost centuries now, is really problematic. So is this ban likely to face legal challenges like you faced in Trump won? I think there will be some challenges, but I don't think that they'll be successful because what the Trump administration has done now is learn from the Supreme Court in 2018 that sort of gave him these rights and this runway in a political arena. So while he can do these things, what I wonder is, is this the right time to do these things? Because as you know, the United States this year is hosting a lot of international events, starting with FIFA this year, but along with most of North America. And what this ban does is it keeps a lot of the fans from being able to come to the United States, which is a lot of the economic reasons that the United States wanted to host it in the first place. So it's sort of a bad timing to sort of have this implemented when so many people will be trying to come to the United States to spend money and to also see these games. Let's continue along that path. How else do you see this ban disadvantaging the United States? I think it sort of shows that the United States is not the beacon welcome that it is, right? Our whole thing about the United States is that we're welcoming, we're able to vet people, and we see people individually. And by saying that one individual from Egypt, which is not even included on the list, causes us to have great concerns about all these different arenas and areas for people that we could have vet through the State Department sort of says, is the United States this beacon of welcoming people and how this will hurt our international systems? And are we as an established nation, if we're really concerned about these smaller countries letting one individual in to disrupt our total system? It doesn't really celebrate the uniqueness and the position of the United States with regards to international intelligence. All right. And what about people from the countries affected? Are they likely to be adversely affected beyond not being able to get into the country? Has he given sufficient notice for people to sort of get their affairs in order? Well, I mean, people... In order to come to the United States, it usually takes about a year to get a visa. So many of these people won't have their affairs in order and they might have to cancel their visas. In fact, we've seen one African nation basically do a ban on United States citizens. We've seen another say, Somalia say, we'll reach out and do whatever we can. What happens in this is it becomes a moving target to what will celebrate, what will satisfy the United States to allow them to lift the travel ban for you to come to the United States. And that's not clear in the order. So what is clear is that he just wants to send a message that he can do this. And this is a way that the Supreme Court said that he could do it. What it does is disrupts the whole ecosystem of sort of saying, this is who the State Department is and what we do is we vet visas from around the world. I mean, why is it not that... I mean, even saying that it's about visa overstays isn't a direct link to a threat to the United States because there are other countries that have many more visa overstays than the countries that are on the list. And he's looking to also end a lot of humanitarian programs for many of these countries and return individuals to these countries in the United States while at the same time saying they're not safe places to go. So it's a very inconsistent statement coming from the White House with regards to these countries, their situations, and what our game plan is and exactly what the threat is to the United States. Just looking at the deportations that have happened in the U.S. of suspected gang members and of students, people from these 12 countries who are already in the U.S., can they consider themselves safe? So, I mean, that's a really precarious question in which the Venezuelan sort of said anyone in the United States who is from Venezuela right now is in the spectrum. So the answer is, if you're already here, you should be considering yourself safe in a valid status. If you're out of status, then everyone who's out of status is a target within the United States automatically. So there's a spectrum. If you have status and you're on your valid visa and you're doing what you need to do, then you should have no problem right now in the United States. If you are out of status in the United States, it is a very troubling time and you should be looking for some way to either gain status or to return to your home country or some other country where you can seek refuge. Right. So if you already have a visa, as I understand it, this ban will not apply to you. So what would you advise your clients if they're from one of the countries on this list? Should they travel abroad? No. Right. So travel abroad right now is not recommended for any category of my clients, even if you're a green card holder and if they had one for a long time, just because there's so many different things that we can't control the State Department. And once you're outside the United States, it's difficult to get back in. So if you are in the United States and you're one of these affected countries, then you should not travel to come back to the United States. You definitely should not travel internationally. I would not go to Hawaii or to Puerto Rico. If you are outside the United States, if you are planning to come to the United States, then you would need to have done that or put that in effect before June 9th. If you don't make it to the United States by June 9th, then you will not be allowed in, even if you currently have a visa from these countries. Right. And what about the exemptions to this ban? How far reaching are they? They're very far reaching, but it doesn't really show clear specifications. So there are some immigrant visas from AFSCAN that have been excluded, who, if you are able to get here anyway, just because of the circumstances. There are people who actually have a green card, so they're excluded because that's what we learned from the Supreme Court before. And then there are other very few exceptions. So across the board, the exceptions aren't broad enough to sort of reach the main categories that people are going to be impacted, which are students who are coming on Fs, Js, or Ms of the United States to study or continue their education, or researchers who are coming here to continue research occupations. That's also going to be sort of hit pretty hard, is a lot of this international research that happens across continents. Good talk you two. Thanks for talking us through that. Immigration lawyer, Alan Orr. Thank you. All right, I want to pull in now Christy Jackson. She's a partner and the head of U.S. practice at Laura Divine Immigration in London. That's a firm that provides strategic advice on UK and U.S. immigration. It's good to have you on the program. Last time Trump was president during his first term, he imposed a travel ban on a number of countries, which caused, we remember the scenes of chaos at airports around the world. Is that going to happen this time? I don't think it will be as bad as it was during the 2017 travel ban, because we've been given a bit of extra notice. In 2017, it was done effectively immediate and Customs and Border Protection wasn't prepared. I do think that there will be chaos still, but not at the same level, mainly because I think that there are people who maybe are exempt and don't know it or think they're exempt and have misunderstood. So I do still think that travelers may be confused, but I think I hope that the border officials are slightly more clued in. What about you? Are you clued in as to why the U.S. president felt that now is the time to announce a new travel ban? Don't know why. I think we've been expecting it. It doesn't surprise me that it's come. We've been expecting it since he took office. Frankly, I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier. The events in Colorado with the Egyptian asylum seeker, I think, maybe prompted a little bit. Notably, though, Egypt is not listed on the travel ban list of countries. But I do think maybe that's prompted maybe the action now. In some countries, we understand that they face only partial restrictions. So what does that involve? This is interesting, and I think perhaps maybe part of the legal challenge, because as I'm sure you're aware, the first travel ban was challenged, made it to the Supreme Court in the Hawaii and was upheld. And this one is much wider in scope. And as you noted, it has two parts, a full ban of 12 countries and then the partial ban of an additional set of countries. And the partial ban is only for students and visitors. It's very narrow. And the only legal justification for the ban is national security. That's what falls under the president's powers in the Immigration and Nationality Act. And I think it may be difficult to withstand argument and scrutiny in court if they are pointing out that it's only students and visitors that are being banned from those additional seven countries. So I think we'll have to see what happens there. But it is only those additional seven partial are only students and visitors. I also understand that the president issued this new travel ban because the countries where the travel is being banned from are countries that the U.S. State Department finds just not to be vetting people adequately. With that in mind, what do you tell your clients, people who come to you, in terms of making sure that their individual story, that their backgrounds can meet the standards that the State Department has set or Homeland Security for that matter? So I think vetting is a hot topic, right? That's what's going on with the student visa suspensions. There's no appointments for student visas at all at the moment because they want to increase their vetting capabilities at the Department of State with regards to student social media. So vetting is a big hot topic at the moment. And I think really the justification for these bans on the basis that their countries aren't vetting, I think it's much less about the individual and more about the country. So their practices in keeping, you know, on their citizens. Okay. Immigration lawyer, Christy Jackson, joining us from London. Christy, we appreciate your time and your insights. Thank you. Thanks, Brent.