Trump’s Ban-Economy or Safety
June 13, 2017 | Expert Insights
As US President Donald Trump’s travel ban on the Islamic countries continues to be blocked by federal courts, the fate of the ban will likely be decided by the nation's Supreme Court soon.
Travel ban
The US President’s travel ban on 6 Muslim countries (Syria, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen) has been seen as the most stringent immigration policy in generations. According to him the ban is necessary to keep out ‘radical Islamic terrorist’.
When Trump signed the executive order for the ban, it was swiftly met with backlash and led to large-scale protests from citizens of the country. The International Rescue Committee called the decision “harmful and hasty”. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called it a “euphemism for discriminating against Muslims”. The ban was imposed on 7 major Islamic countries but later Iraq was pulled out of it.
Trump’s travel ban faces a blow...
On June 12th, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court Appeals ruled against most aspects of the ban. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals had also voted to uphold the block last month on grounds that the President’s call on the ban was informed by religious intolerance and discrimination. According to the court, the President exceeded the scope of authority delegated to him by the Congress.
The matter will be taken to the Supreme Court which would have the final say. However, the Trump administration is confident that the Supreme Court would uphold the ban.
Assessment
Trump’s argument for enforcing the ban on the Muslim countries has at times contradicted itself. Largely because while the President has claimed that this move would prevent terrorism, the ban excludes Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates even though these countries have links to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This is because they are economically important to the United States for oil. Iraq which is the base of the ISIS was also pulled out of the ban. Thus Trump’s reason for the ban is seen to be comprising for certain economic interest and refutes his reasons.
Comments