The major story going through the news this week is the travel ban that President Trump implemented via Executive Order. The basic details of the ban are that for the 90 days following the order, travel from seven countries to the United States is prohibited. All seven countries have Muslim majorities. The ban includes Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
As could have been predicted by anyone, the travel ban proved to be a fertilizer for chaos, protests, and civil unrest. Some of the negative reaction to the travel ban is legitimate, and some of it isn’t. The ban was in some ways implemented sloppily, both from a public relations standpoint and from a logical standpoint. Although there are legitimate criticisms to be made, other criticisms of the ban are exaggerated or false.
The first and most glaring problem with Trump’s travel ban is that it went into effect instantaneously, with people who had already boarded flights to the US being detained at the airports when they arrived. This was an unnecessary over reach of the Executive Order, and resulted in a great deal of confusion when the people who had legitimately traveled into the country on valid visas were detained for hours at the airports they had arrived in. It seems as though this was intended to demonstrate the authority and ability of the new administration, but instead it made them come across as disorganized and indifferent to the travelers. This was a public relations disaster, as the media began running stories on the airport turmoil. For example, one story that circulated widely was the story of a five year old boy who was supposedly handcuffed and detained for hours at Dulles airport in Washington DC.
One of the major criticisms against the travel ban has been that it excludes countries where the perpetrators of previous terror attacks on the US have come from. Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers originated from, is not included in the ban, and neither are the other countries that the hijackers originated from. Many media outlets have claimed that the reason the ban includes the countries that it does is because Trump has business dealings in other countries like Saudi Arabia, and therefore chose not to ban those other countries out of a conflict of interest. This is not true. The reason those seven countries were chosen was because they were the countries identified as “countries of concern” in a 2015 law that removed waiver benefits for foreign nationals who had visited these countries since March 2011. Some people have pointed out that previous administration never intended for travel to be banned from those seven countries. That is true, however the reason it is brought up that the list was from the previous administration is to show how claims that it was illogical or motivated by Trump’s personal interests are false.
Overall, people are making too much of the travel ban. I will concede that it is largely pointless, and mainly intended to show that Trump can make good on his campaign promises as opposed to the ban being primarily motivated by what makes the most sense policy-wise. However, the complete meltdown of people in America and abroad over this mostly insignificant policy, which will be lifted in 90 days anyway, is ridiculous in my opinion.