Remember the so-called “Muslim ban” (or “Muslim travel ban”) of the first Trump administration? It was never intended to apply only to Muslims, nor were all Muslims covered by it. The criterion for being subject to the ban was simple: did the country in question harbor terrorists and terror organizations, and did it adequately gather and share information about them with the United States? Now the Trump administration is talking of reimposing that ban on countries which have terrorists on their soil, and are unable to adequately provide information about them to American authorities. What was called a “Muslim ban” did not apply to 95% of the world’s Muslims. Furthermore, it applied to only 5 of the 57 majority-Muslim nations. Nonetheless, when Trump puts back the ban on those countries — no doubt with some additions to, and omissions from, the list that appeared in 2017 — we will again hear shrill cries of outrage about a “Muslim ban.” More on the plan by Trump to reimpose a “travel ban” on countries that cannot or will not provide information on terrorism can be found here: “Trump plans to bring back what Dems lied and called ‘Muslim ban’ — it’s about terrorism,” by Todd Bensman, New York Post, November 14, 2024:
Not long before President Donald Trump, in his first term, issued his so-called “travel ban” on 13 countries, Somalia-born Abdul Razak Ali Artan drove a Honda Civic into a crowd of fellow Ohio State University students and got out slashing with a butcher knife, injuring 11.
Campus police shot the young jihadist refugee to death, ending the Nov. 28, 2016 attack.
But this tragedy — and far too many other terrorism cases — would never have happened under Trump’s soon-after installed, falsely named “Muslim travel ban,” which sharply curtailed immigrant and non-immigrant US visas for foreign nationals from Somalia and 12 other nations where international terrorist groups operate.
Had the ban been in place, Abdul Razak Ali Artan would not have been in America, where he tried to run down, and then stabbed, eleven college students with a butcher knife.
Two years earlier, US authorities had authorized the Somali, his mother and seven siblings to settle in Ohio on refugee applications from a Pakistan camp.
They’d never have been allowed in at all were it in place.
Trump’s policy attracted so much backlash from virtue-signaling political oppositionists in the Democratic Party (whose publicists came up with the sticky “Muslim ban” label) that presidential candidate Joe Biden campaigned to rescind it and quickly followed through in March 2021 with a “Proclamation on Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to The United States.”
The ban did not discriminate against Muslims. It kept out Muslims and non-Muslims alike from countries that could not or would not cooperate with ”American security-vetting processes.” Keep firmly in mind that 95% of the world’s Muslims were not covered by the ban.
But now that Trump plans to resuscitate what he called his “famous Travel Ban” for a second term, Americans deserve to know its common-sense original national security purpose.
And, because times have changed, the incoming administration should consider expanding the original list of problematic countries far beyond the 13 that were last on it — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania.
At its heart, the immigrant visa restrictions were only ever meant to apply to countries of terrorism concern that don’t, won’t, or can’t cooperate with American security-vetting processes.
The countries on the list have gone entirely ungoverned for years and therefore are unable to take an American request for information and intelligence.
A good example is Somalia, which went ungoverned by any “recognized competent civil authority” for 25 years of civil war, to the extent that most citizens born after 1991 have no birth certificates, driver licenses, marriage papers or criminal records….
And some countries on the list are able, but unwilling, to provide the necessary information to the Americans; these include Iran and North Korea.
Similarly, Yemen, under US-hating Houthi rebel group rule, is useless in US security vetting.
Consider the case of Gaafar Muhammed Ebrahim Al-Wazer, 25, made legal entry into the United States in 2014: He swore on his visa applications while in front of an American officer in the US embassy that he had no affiliations with the Houthi rebels….
Al-Wazer entered the US three years before Trump’s travel ban — that its enemies call the “Muslim ban” — was put in place. Had it been in place, he never would have been allowed in.
Before Trump left office, his administration showed it was willing to add or subtract countries as changing circumstances required.
For instance, it added Nigeria, Kyrgyzstan, Eritrea, Tanzania and Myanmar for their inability to help the US do security vetting.
Tanzania and Myanmar are not “Muslim” countries, while Nigeria is only 50% Muslim. And all any country needed to do to remove itself from the ban was to improve its “systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals” with the US. Two Muslim states, Iraq and Chad, did just that, and were taken off the “travel ban” list. Doesn’t that prove that the adequacy of the information-sharing, and not Muslim beliefs, is what determined a country’s appearance on the list? Iraq has, however, in the last two years it has exhibited a distinctly hostile attitude toward America, and may therefore be put on the new list.
The law on the travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii. In its decision, the majority found the proclamation of the travel ban applied to nationals of countries that did not, or could not, supply intelligence information about its nationals as requested by the American government. The Court said the ban did not favor or disfavor any particular religion. The majority of the Court found that the fact that many majority-Muslim countries were not subject to restrictions and that some non-majority-Muslim countries were subject to the restrictions supported the government’s contention that the Proclamation was not based on anti-Muslim animus, and was instead based on “a sufficient national security justification.”
That travel ban will again be imposed on the countries placed on the new list compiled by the Trump administration. It will include almost all of the countries that were on the first list, with a handful of additions and omissions. About half will be the Muslim-majority lands. But this time, following the decision in Trump v. Hawaii, the ban will withstand any legal challenge to it. And Americans, in their turn rightward, are in no mood to tolerate any CAIR-promoted hysteria about what they are again ready to denounce as Trump’s “racist Muslim ban.”
Wellington says
One way or another Democrats will demonize almost everything that Trump does, whether about getting rid of certain useless federal departments (e.g., the Department of Education which spends billions and has accomplished nothing or even less than nothing), securing our borders (the Democratic excuse will be it will adversely affect the economy because we need illegals even though it is against the law to employ illegals), using the threat of tariffs, which Trump did quite effectively in his first term, to create a even playing field with nations like China which do not want an even playing field, or this issue about imposing a travel ban against some of the most dysfunctional and rotten countries on Earth and which will be described by Democrats aplenty as evidence of Trump’s Islamophobia.
Per Senator Kennedy of Louisiana (and who used to be a Democrat but is now a Republican), the Republican Party is full of faults but the other major political party is crazy. I have zero doubt that the single greatest enemy of America is not Russia, not China, not the Islamic world, not a seemingly permanently dysfunctional Latin America, et al. but the modern Democratic Party which has become, effectively, an utter traitor to America. Yes, this awful and by now one knows this or should know it. Should the Democratic Party of America be no more, it would be a boon for America and for all mankind. Yes, this party is this awful. I have nothing but contempt for it.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
If the Dems had any sense, they’d drop their support for muslims, and start treating them like they treat Cubans. After all, despite them pandering to all those muslims in Dearborn and Hamtramck, those muslims betrayed them in a big way – not only breaking for Trump, but voting for Jill Stein after him, w/ Kamala a distant third
The whole open borders agenda of the Dems has been to get replacement voters and do to the entire country what they’ve successfully done in California. Except that it hasn’t worked out that way, and when they find out that all it has done is cost them the votes of citizens, regardless of race. The Dems have the formula: they were pro-Hispanic everywhere else, but drew the line on Cuban-Americans, who they saw tilt heavily Republican. Similarly, they can switch tactics completely, turn on muslims & support this Trump ban, and maybe get back some of the Jewish vote that they lost. Oh, and on foreign policy, return to the policies of JFK and Moynihan when it came to Israel
That said, it’s fun to watch the circular firing squad within the Democrat Party. Even Obama can’t call the shots any more
somehistory says
Just imagine….if bill clinton had a travel ban back when he was president…actually elected to office…and somalia had been on the list of nations whose citizens were not allowed to come to the U.S.
Just imagine. He did *qualify* certain people names as okay to come here. The name “omar’ was one such approved name..
So a mozlum terrorist named “elmi” changed his name to “omar” and got an okay from clinton’s admin to come in and bring his family. That mozlum terrorist had a daughter by the name of ilhan elmi. She became “ilhan omar.” for the purpose of coming here . (that’s known as ***fraud.****)
Just imagine if a “travel ban” had been in place back then and somalia was on that list.
Too bad Mr. Trump’s list can’t be retroactive to before clinton allowed people by the name of “omar” to come here without being fully vetted. To know a terrorist could find out about the names allowed and fraudulently change his….makes some of us wish.
And somehow, r. tlaib’s “palestinian” family got in; somehow. And Gaza is a breeding ground for terror, as she is well aware as she supports it.
And all those people like a. awad of cair. They could have been kept out. There wouldn’t be so many supporters of hamas in WI, MI and MN. And the tsarnev bomber brothers and their family. And the mozlum couple who shot up a CA Christmas party a few years ago. So very many terrorists.
If only other presidents had been even somewhat aware of the dangers terrorists carry with them.
EndPC says
Why can’t there be a total ban (per USC 8 ss1182) on muslim immigration given the nature of that evil? Allow only Christians & other non-muslims from these muslim majority lands who could probably qualify as asylum seekers.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Fully agree w/ you. However, not only would there be a complete meltdown on the Left, but even in parts of the Right – like Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, John Kasich,…. would scream bloody murder. That’s why all those other conditions have to be overlaid
Troybeam says
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act 6/27/1952 became public law 414. Look it up.
Late Sen. Ted Kennedy had law revised in the late 1960’s, yes the democrats are evil.
Nabi says
He’d pick up even more support now if he’d invoke a really tight Islamist ban.
End pc says
Why not a total & real muslim ban?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
This time, take Burma/Myanmar off the list: neither their people nor their regime poses any threat to the US. Only reason they have been dinged is for being “islamophobic”, and having a military junta
Otoh, add countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey to the list. Among non-muslim countries, add Venezuela and Nicaragua to the list, if they ain’t there already, & take a hard look at Colombia, Peru & Chile, all of which now have Leftist regimes in power
Rufolino says
“Did the country in question harbour terrorists ?”
One ‘retired’ terrorist leader is living in a UK council house !
Today the United Kingdom is harbouring terrorists, so presumably on this list it will have to be.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Yeah, the UK & Canada, and maybe even Australia and New Zealand, ought to be on this list. In fact, given that factoid, it’s probably a good idea for the US to exit the “Five Eyes” treaty, which has nothing in common except the countries being English speaking, and each of the countries skirting civil liberties laws by spying on citizens of other countries, which they themselves couldn’t do. I recall in 2017 or so when I watched an interview of George Papadopaulos by Mark Steyn, where he described how he was browbeaten by former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer for doing something against British interests. From that time, I realized that this was a really sleazy arrangement
Patriot64 says
America must be protected from all Clear and present danger from outside of our borders and from within our borders.
James Lincoln says
Recommendation to President-elect Trump:
Don’t make a travel ban list.
Make a list of ALLOWABLE countries of origin – followed by extreme vetting.
somehistory says
James, I believe a list of those countries which would vet and check, would be a lot shorter than ones which would gladly share their terrorists and do no vetting.
Let’s see. Argentina and Japan. and Perhaps now, Switzerland.
James Lincoln says
Yes, somehistory.
pfwag says
Most Muslims put sharia above a democracy, a Republic, and the Constitution. That makes any Muslim unfit for immigration to the USA.
Patriot64 says
Agreed
Patriot64 says
We have deport anyone regardless where they came who are ANTI AMERICAN. This includes home grown Anti Americans have them choose where they would rather live instead of America.
jus wundrin says
GOOD!
…..but unfortunately I think its too late. The evil is here, and theres no going back. Stay vigilant!
gravenimage says
Trump Will Reimpose Travel Ban on Terrorism-Plagued Countries
……………………………………
Good to hear–a wise first step.