Trump’s new travel ban still needs scrutiny
The Trump administration had little choice but to revise its travel restriction rules for immigrants. The new approach is not ideal, but it does scale back the earlier proposal that targeted visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries in a way that imposed a virtual religion test for immigration.
The Washington Attorney General's Office successfully halted that earlier approach. Under it, even individuals with U.S.-issued green cards or visas were were turned away if they were from the targeted nations.
The new order takes effect March 16. It lets in travelers from Iraq but still puts a 90-day freeze on travelers from a half-dozen Muslim-majority nations, including Iran, Syria, and Yemen. It also lets in legal residents such as those with green cards or visa holders.
The order also places a moratorium for 120 days on any refugee admissions. This is meant to let the administration develop its “extreme vetting” procedures for refugees.
Vetting of refugees was already a slow, arduous process under the Obama administration. If the new rules improve national security, as Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly promises, the government must delineate more clearly the links between actual risks and the persons targeted for closer scrutiny.
Unfortunately the new order plays into a general hysteria about immigrants — based on fear rather than fact — that Trump, as a candidate, espoused as part of his ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. The new restrictions remain counterproductive if they alienate U.S. Muslims whose cooperation is needed to counter jihadi threats.
Recent U.S. shootings with race or religion-based motives remind us that danger is near when we vilify those we perceive as foreigners. The recent shootings of Indian immigrants living in Kansas and last Friday of a Sikh man in Kent show how fear and bigotry cause harm. The round-up of Japanese-Americans during World War II should have been instructive enough.
Trump’s new order still bars travelers from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. In recognition that there can be no religious preference for immigrants, the administration dropped a provision giving entry to religious minorities (i.e., Christians) from the targeted countries.
As courts sort out legal questions about the latest order, the federal government needs to provide details showing how actual threats are posed by the travelers being targeted. Broad assertions that 300 refugees are under investigation for unspecified terrorism-related actions in this country are not enough.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s legal team challenged the original order and twice won in court. It is right to give close scrutiny to the revised rules.
It is essential that we as a country not cave in to immigration hysteria. Our country must be secure, but not by forfeiting our greater values. These include constitutional protections for the practice of all religions.
This story was originally published March 7, 2017 at 8:36 PM with the headline "Trump’s new travel ban still needs scrutiny."