On January 27, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protection of the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” The order forbids entrance to the United States for citizens of 7 countries: Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It also prevents refugees from entering the U.S. for 90 days, with Syrian Refugees being banned indefinitely. Finally, the order places a cap of 50,000 on the number of refugees allowed into the United States in Fiscal Year 2017 ending on September 30. To place this into perspective, the previous cap for refugees was more than double that at 110,000. Though many have attempted to represent this order as un-related to religious belief, these nations represent around 82% of the Islamic refugees fleeing to America.
This, of course, led to protests in airports across the country and plenty of squabbling on social media. Though during the campaign, there were plenty of talking heads admonishing critics not to take all of Trump’s rhetoric literally, his first week has shown that he is willing to follow up on at least some of his more outlandish promises. This was met with applause from Trump’s legions of supporters hoping for the economic prosperity and safety that comes along with the promise to make “America win like never before.” Though many of his followers believe that his strict attitude to immigration will lead to greater safety and more jobs for Americans, this optimism is most likely misplaced.
In terms of economics, his policies on immigration suggest a more protectionist direction which is worrying. In regards to migration, there is general agreement among economists that immigration leads to economic growth. This isn’t surprising considering how free movement of labor is an essential part of free-trade gospel, even to the point that it is identified as a pre-requisite for the existence of a capitalist economy by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. What is surprising is the position that many conservatives- normally free-market cheerleaders- have taken against migration. The threat of further protectionism will most likely produce uncertainty in global markets leading to a decline in business investment.
In regards to protecting Americans, the order will accomplish little. Over the past 40 years, there has not been a single terrorist attack carried out by anyone of the seven nationalities included in the ban. Indeed, one of the many ironies of this case is that, even though the order is justified by vague references to 9/11, not a single one of the hijackers’ countries-of-origin is included in the ban. Further, a study carried out by Libertarian think-tank, the Cato Institute, found that the odds of an American being killed by an immigrant-initiated terrorist attack was one in 3.6 billion, placing it behind being struck by lightning, being buried alive, and drowning while taking a bath.
One of my favorite arguments defending Trump’s ban has been the assertion that President Obama did the same thing in 2011, claiming “He banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” Further, this line of explanation contends the nations involved in the ban were designated for additional scrutiny by the Obama administration, and those hypocritical leftists protesting are only feigning anger now because it’s politically convenient.
Those pushing this narrative, of course, offer little context to these claims, because drilling even slightly below the surface would betray their dishonesty. This line of reasoning willfully ignores several points of distinction between the two orders. First, the Obama administration’s ban was a response to a specific threat. In 2011, two Iraqi refugees were apprehended for plotting a terrorist attack, triggering the Obama administration to announce a review of vetting procedures for a single country: Iraq. Further, this review only affected refugees applying for Special Immigrant Visas (SIV), a program created by congress in 2006 to assist Iraqi and Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. during military campaigns. Finally, the assertion that the Obama administration “banned visas”, not only ignores the obvious fact that refugees do not travel on visas, but also that the Obama administration never stopped Iraqi refugees from entering the country. Despite migration slowing significantly, refugees never stopped entering the United States.
This same obscurity plagues the second argument put forward that the Obama administration had previously designated these countries for additional scrutiny. This designation only applied to those under the State Department’s Visa Waiver Program, which allowed citizens of certain countries to enter the U.S. without first obtaining a visa. Though this program overwhelmingly advantaged Europeans, after the San Bernadino terror attacks in 2015, Congressional Democrats amended the program to exclude Europeans related to these seven countries, such as dual nationals, and those who had recently visited Iraq.
No such circumstances have been offered to explain Trump’s travel ban, which shows the shallowness of the argument. Only in the vaguest way do President Obama’s executive orders resemble those of President Trump’s. And I’ve noticed that many of those screaming “hypocrisy!” won’t even defend the ban as good policy. This simply reflects the immature finger-pointing that American politics has descended into. Yes, it would be wrong if the Obama administration had done the same thing as Trump is proposing. But just because someone else did something wrong, something you don’t even try to justify, does not mean it is right when you do it. These arguments are simply meant to obscure the Trump administration’s actions in an attempt to normalize them as policy- and normal human behavior.
