A better ban’s bad logic
The second iteration of President Trump’s travel ban, subject to extreme vetting that eluded the carelessly drafted original, is likelier to pass legal and constitutional muster. It is less likely to cause chaos at the airports. It is no better calibrated to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil — which was supposed to be the whole point.
Compare and contrast today’s order to what it replaces. What was a pause on all immigration and travel from seven nations now applies to six nations; Iraq has fallen off a list that still includes Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Give the Trump administration a shred of credit for not repeating the outrageous unforced error of preventing people who heroically assisted the U.S. military during years of war from migrating here, often after becoming targets of ISIS and other combatants.
Other improvements: Green-card holders, dual citizens and people with already approved visas are now free to travel.
Syrian refugees — rather than being singled out for an indefinite ban — are now lumped in with all other refugees, susceptible to a general 120-day “hold.” That’s a more humane approach to people desperate to flee a nation ripped apart by years of brutal war.
This time, there is no particular carve-out for religious minorities, a provision in Travel Ban 1.0 that effectively gave special preference to Christians at the expense of the many Muslims oppressed by radical Islamists.
Last, a 10-day delay between when the order was signed and its implementation date will give airlines and bureaucrats time to get ducks in rows.
But a better version of a bad idea is not a good idea. The fundamental flaw in the Trump administration’s approach to banning entry to individuals on a nation-by-nation basis remains. Namely, it confuses individuals’ country of origin with their likelihood of being violent radicals.
Not a single visitor or immigrant from one of the six countries in question has committed a fatal act of terrorism on American soil.
Besides, even if one were to believe that national origin correlates with propensity for terrorism, Saudi Arabia has sent more terrorists here.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan rank first through fourth on the 2016 Global Terrorism Index, an independent statistical effort to identify the world’s top terror hotbeds.
As an internal analysis by the Department of Homeland Security released late last month revealed, more than half the 82 people who committed terrorist acts on U.S. soil since 2011 were American-born. The others were born in one of 26 countries — the single most common of which happened to be Pakistan.
None of this is to say that the six countries in question are incapable of exporting terrorists. Simply that the gains promised by Trump are minuscule, especially when compared to the maximalist promises made by the administration.
And for that minuscule gain, the United States makes it ever easier for the likes of ISIS to successfully portray America as a country hostile to Islam.
It’s just not worth it.