The Travel Ban Resurrected

Starting on June 29th 2017, the US will no longer permit foreign nationals into its territory if they lack a clear bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the travel ban case, in the month of October.

Background

This means that people from the six Muslim majority countries having no close ties with the US will be banned from entering the country for 90 days. Refugees will also be banned from entering the US for a period of 120 days.

The court’s decision was regarded as a partial victory for the Trump administration, who asserted that implementing such a ban is a fight to ensure national security.

The travel ban was first introduced on January but it was opposed by the US federal courts. The courts had argued that the ban was discriminatory as it targeted a religious community – ‘Muslims’ from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

In May, a second downturn was struck against the President’s executive order. However, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on Monday, may give the order a new direction.

Analysis

The introduction of the travel ban was highly controversial in the US, most judges feel that the ban fails to coincide with the laws of the US Constitution (1^st Amendment of the United States Constitution).

It has been reported that ever since the announcement of the first travel ban, the number of travelers into the United States has drastically fallen. While the travel ban restricts people only from certain countries, people feel that the US is hostile towards all foreigners. Tourism Economics, a research firm, stated that the Trump administration has so far caused the US tourism industry to lose over six million visitors in the coming year.

New York, the largest travel destination in the US expects a 30,000 decline in foreign visitors in 2017. The US Travel Association estimates that more that 1 million jobs are a byproduct of spending by foreign travelers.

Assessment

Our assessment is that from a foreign policy perspective, the travel ban is feasible for America due to its unique geography, which has allowed it to pursue even an ‘isolationist policy’ prior to World War I.  The expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans had made it possible for the United States to enjoy a kind of “free security” and remain largely detached from Old World conflicts. Such a ban would not be possible for a continent like Europe, owing mainly to its geography, where Turkey being a transcontinental region, allows an easy land access between Asia and Europe.

The US has to undertake a taxonomy on the perceived threat and see whether the response is proportionate. Would isolating communities incite people in the country to act in a manner detrimental to its security? If the recent narratives from the European continent regarding the behaviour of immigrants who have become naturalized citizens are a testimony, then the move to affect the travel ban might be counterproductive.