In the wake of terrorist attacks in London, President Trump is once again calling for a travel ban. And once again, his proposal is facing opposition from lawyers and members of Congress.
When the president entered office, he tried to impose a temporary hiatus on travel from seven countries. After courts stopped enforcement of this travel restriction, the Justice Department made some minor alterations and re-issued it. Courts also invalidated that revised restriction.
The president’s lawyers say that what he is proposing is not a travel ban, but instead is a temporary travel restriction for people from countries that do not have sufficient security screening. These countries all have populations that are majority Muslim.
The president is not reading from the same script, however. On Twitter he said, “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”
He also said his Justice Department was wrong for issuing a revised, or “watered down” in his words, travel restriction.
The policy – whether a travel ban or a travel hiatus – was put forward as a way for the Trump Administration to review its vetting procedures for people coming into the U.S. from places that have heightened risks of terrorism. It was originally supposed to last for 90 days.
Some critics point out that if the ban was needed to give the Trump Administration time to review its procedures, then it’s had that time. According to Virginia Senator Mark Warner, “If the president wanted 90 days to re-examine how individuals from certain countries would enter the United States, he’s had more than 90 days.” Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall said that the Trump Administration has “done nothing to review the vetting procedures for these countries.”
Do you support banning individuals from certain countries from traveling to the U.S.? Or do you think there are other ways that the U.S. should screen travelers?