Authored By: Elena Sakelaris
America is a country made up of immigrants. How many times have we heard these words in
the last two weeks? Personally, I come
from a family of immigrants, my mother’s family came to America from Sicily and
my father’s family came to America from Greece. And there are millions more people
just like me who have had family come to the United States in the last 90
years. Immigrants are a fundamental part
of the United States’ economy and character, there is no denying this
fact. Therefore, the recent action by
President Trump to institute a travel ban does appear on its face to be
fundamentally against the American melting pot.
However, it is important for people to acknowledge the legal basis for
instituting a travel ban and the fact that this is not the first time something
of this nature has occurred.
Throughout history, there have been various travel bans
instituted. Since the late 1800s
Congress has placed limits on the number of immigrants coming to America. In the 1920s immigration restrictions
increased and the Immigration
Act of 1924 placed overall limits on the number of immigrants and
established quotas basted on nationality.
The quota system was not eliminated until Johnson signed the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1965. Other
Presidents, including recent Presidents such as Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush
II, and Obama, have enacted temporary travel bans in the interest of national
security. And this therefore is the
fundamental issue of President Trump’s travel ban: whether the President is
acting within the national security interest of the country.
First,
legally the President does have the authority to institute travel
restrictions and temporary bans. The
President has plenary power when dealing with foreign relations, and due to
Congressional delegation, the President’s authority has grown since the 1960s
allowing the executive branch to become even more active in directing foreign
policy. Furthermore, under Federal
Immigration Law 8 U.S.C.
§1182—Inadmissible Aliens, “whenever the President finds that the entry of
any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and
for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or
any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” This section of the U.S. Code gives the President
broad authority to act within the national interest to institute temporary
travel bans. Furthermore, the order does
not specifically mention a Muslim ban, and therefore would not constitute a
violation of the non-discrimination provision of Section 1152(a) of Title
8 of the U.S.C. Rather it is
intended to serve the purpose of promoting national security by preventing
potential terrorists from entering the country.
Legally, so long as the President is acting on a legitimate foreign
policy interest and the language of the order is neutral and not in violation
of any of the U.S.C., the order is deemed legitimate regardless of the actual application
or public sentiment.
The real issue with the order is not whether or not the
President possesses the legal authority to enact such a policy—he does—the issue
is whether or not instituting this temporary travel ban is a legitimate way to
prevent potential or actual terrorists from entering the United States. The seven countries in the ban have already
been identified as “countries
of concern” under the Obama Administration.
Many have argued, rightly so,
that had this travel ban been instituted previously, it likely would not have
prevented any of the terror attacks in the United States since 9/11. None of the twelve terrorist who
conducted deadly attacks in the U.S. emigrated from or were born into a family
that emigrated from a country that is subject to the travel ban. The ban misses
the intended target, potential terrorists, and instead opens the risk of
countries becoming unwilling to work with the United States through providing
intelligence and other counter-terrorism measures. The President is justified in his desire to
keep America secure, however the poor and rushed implementation of the travel
ban have had the opposite
impact due to the chaos and uncertainty that have ensued.
Furthermore, the response to the ban with the increased
number of people at airports across the country either being detained, or
delayed due to protesters poses the potential for a Belgium-style terror
attack which would inflict great destruction due to the sheer number of
individuals at U.S. airports. It is
terrifying to think of the potential harm individuals and the United States at
large could face if a radicalized individual or group were to capitalize on the
current state
of chaos in the United States.
Regardless of whether or not an individual voted for
President Trump or whether or not one likes or agrees with him, the travel ban
is having the opposite effect of securing the nation from foreign threats. Terrorism is a real threat in the modern
world; however instituting policies such as the travel ban have the chilling
effect of encouraging ISIS to continue to capitalize and claim responsibility
for world-wide acts of terrorism, even if the individual who committed the act
has no true affiliation with ISIS, because of the wide-spread fear and unrest
terrorism causes. Radicalization itself
needs to be targeted not to entire countries, because the threat comes from
non-state actors and therefore action against entire nations does not
ultimately solve or address the entire issue.
If temporary travel bans do address the issue, they are only scratching
the surface of a serious threat to global security.
