Travel ban spat ignores larger issues
On Monday, President Trump signed another executive order temporarily banning citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
This is the Trump administration’s second attempt at this controversial policy, and, while the newest iteration is not as disconcerting as the first, it leaves many questions unanswered and underscores the need for a coherent immigration and counterterrorism policy path going forward.
Unquestionably, there is a need for a serious national debate about immigration in the age of terrorism. And it is not unreasonable to be concerned that terrorists could exploit our immigration and visa systems to come to the United States and cause harm. But the central focus of the policy should be to stop credible threats from entering the country and carrying out terrorist attacks — not scapegoating swaths of people because they look like, share a religion with, or share a country of origin with, radical terrorists.
If the travel ban ends up as an earnest review of policies and procedures that leads to improvement in our vetting process, that would be a step forward. If it’s merely a veiled attempt to score points with a political base or a first step to permanently limit travel from certain countries to the United States, we have a serious problem.
Simply put, the temporary ban must, indeed, be temporary, and some improved security procedures must be accomplished by it.
Policymakers, particularly Republicans, also ought not lose sight of the opportunity to focus on the real issues and make progress on longstanding GOP priorities, including upgrading and enhancing our technological national security infrastructure to screen would-be visitors and immigrants. They should also look to overhaul our welfare entitlement system, an issue often raised when debating American immigration and naturalization policy.
If someone wants to come to the United States, is not a security threat, is not seeking taxpayer subsidies and entitlements, and wants to work, why wouldn’t we want them in our country? These considerations are absent from the current political debate.
The challenge is that the right wing of the Republican Party and the left wing of the Democratic Party have a seemingly unholy agreement veiled in “America first” rhetoric with ideological underpinnings that go as follows: Trade hurts Americans and immigration is bad and unsafe for the United States. Both assertions are indicative of a renewed sense of inward-focused nationalism. But these ideas are detrimental to our economic vitality and cultural fabric as a country.
In the current political climate, making the case for expanded immigration — from any country — is, tragically, a nonstarter. But our country thrives when we safely allow for immigration for those seeking the American dream. Most people who want to come to the United States do not want to harm others or become a drain on the system; they come for opportunity and a better life. Instead of focusing policy on keeping droves of people out, we should reform the immigration process to safely allow people in and overhaul the taxpayer-funded entitlement system so there is no longer a question about the inherent value immigrants offer to the United States.