The Muddled Travel Ban

    Paul R. Pillar

    Terrorism, Middle East

    The Trump administration’s travel ban is in its third version, and it still does not respond convincingly to the ostensible need it was supposed to address.  The supposed purpose itself is unclear.  The latest version introduces additional confusion about the ostensible objective, even without getting into the real motivations behind it.

    Most administration statements on the subject, including the more formal ones as well as less scripted defenses of the ban, center on the idea of keeping bad guys out of the United States by restricting travel from countries in which such guys are presumed to live.  The disconnect between justification and reality that has existed ever since version 1.0 is that there is little or no correspondence between the countries listed in the ban and where terrorists gunning for the U.S. homeland have come from.  Over the past four decades, no Americans have been killed in the United States by foreign terrorists who came from any of the countries in either the original version of the ban or the latest version. 

    Moreover, the whole idea of a ban on entry to the United States overlooks how much terrorism within the United States, even when it has involved foreign-born individuals, has not involved crossing of borders to commit the act.  According to a study by the New America Foundation, all the perpetrators of post-9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States were U.S. citizens or legal residents and would not have been stopped by the travel ban.  The evident ethnic targeting of the ban is likely only to increase the resentment, suspicion, and alienation—and thus the propensity to resort to extremist violence—of members of the communities who feel kinship with those targeted.

    Read full article
    The National Interest



    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here