US Travel Bans: On Immigration Policy, Trump Is Anything but Erratic
Published in Neue Zürcher Zeitung
(Switzerland) on 5 June 2025
by Isabelle Jacobi (link to original)
The travel ban for citizens of 12 countries is another coup in Trump’s campaign against illegal and legal immigration. He is proceeding unscrupulously — and very intentionally.
Donald Trump is capable of learning. In 2017, he imposed a travel ban, the “Muslim ban,” as it was called, because it only affected countries with majority Muslim populations. The courts immediately blocked the order, which obviously discriminated on the basis of religion. Another attempt, which added non-Muslim countries, eventually made it past the Supreme Court. Now there is a sequel: 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Eritrea, Haiti and Sudan, are affected. This time, the administration and its legal advisers reviewed the measure carefully. That is not a coincidence. Although Trump is relying on a head-over-heels, trial and error approach to the tariffs, he is moving ahead strategically and efficiently on immigration policy.
Here, too, his administration is operating provocatively; the more than 200 “express deportations” to El Salvador carried out under emergency authorities were unscrupulous and most likely illegal. At this point, the Supreme Court has put a hold on them until a final decision is reached.
Trump’s attempts to end birthright citizenship also count as a hyperbolic experiment. This right is, however, rooted in the Constitution, and one can hardly imagine that the Supreme Court would accept such a venturesome reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The Hard Line Bears Fruit
With such provocations, Trump is showing his voters that he is doing what he promised: ending illegal immigration and regulating legal immigration. Behind the scenes, however, a cool-headed and simultaneously radical strategist is pulling the strings:Trump’s acting chief of staff, Stephen Miller. His battle plan has been working so far; illegal immigration on the southern border has practically been stopped and immigrants without documentation are being seized and deported in ever-increasing numbers. There are stricter rules for asylum cases, and the administration is examining visa applications. The administration has also ended President Joe Biden’s refugee programs while Trump is now granting white South Africans protected status.
United States law gives the president considerable authority to manage border protection and asylum and immigration policy. The second Trump administration knows how to exploit it, as the new “proclamation” of a travel ban for 12 countries and tightened restrictions for another seven countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, demonstrates.
Legally, Trump is arguing that, as president, he is obligated to protect the country from “foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats.” Criteria listed for bans against specific countries include lack of screening options, a high rate of visa overstay, risk of terrorism and lack of cooperation with deportations.
United States legal experts consider the travel ban to be legally impervious, thanks in part to a precedent ruling from 2018. Unlike Trump’s earlier executive orders, the “proclamation” does not appear as a demagogic announcement; instead, it was subject to thorough vetting, as is, in fact, usually the case in a functioning U.S. administration. The Trump administration wants to make it more difficult to abuse a visa, above all, and claims that rate of people overstaying their visas in the case of immigrants from many affected countries is more than 40%.
‘We Don’t Want Them’
They very wisely do not state a reason for acting. Many asylum applications originate from people who crossed the border legally. But Trump and his strategist-in-chief are not wasting any energy thinking about the humanitarian situation or those who collaborated with United States organizations and troops in Afghanistan. They are aiming to close all possible entryways for immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees — even for foreign students. Or, as Trump said when he announced the travel ban, “We don’t want them.” European eyes are fixed on Trump’s immigration reform. We can learn how to effectively stop immigration — but we can also learn the price of doing so.
Donald Trump is capable of learning. In 2017, he imposed a travel ban, the “Muslim ban,” as it was called, because it only affected countries with majority Muslim populations. The courts immediately blocked the order, which obviously discriminated on the basis of religion. Another attempt, which added non-Muslim countries, eventually made it past the Supreme Court. Now there is a sequel: 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Eritrea, Haiti and Sudan, are affected. This time, the administration and its legal advisers reviewed the measure carefully. That is not a coincidence. Although Trump is relying on a head-over-heels, trial and error approach to the tariffs, he is moving ahead strategically and efficiently on immigration policy.
Here, too, his administration is operating provocatively; the more than 200 “express deportations” to El Salvador carried out under emergency authorities were unscrupulous and most likely illegal. At this point, the Supreme Court has put a hold on them until a final decision is reached.
Trump’s attempts to end birthright citizenship also count as a hyperbolic experiment. This right is, however, rooted in the Constitution, and one can hardly imagine that the Supreme Court would accept such a venturesome reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The Hard Line Bears Fruit
With such provocations, Trump is showing his voters that he is doing what he promised: ending illegal immigration and regulating legal immigration. Behind the scenes, however, a cool-headed and simultaneously radical strategist is pulling the strings:Trump’s acting chief of staff, Stephen Miller. His battle plan has been working so far; illegal immigration on the southern border has practically been stopped and immigrants without documentation are being seized and deported in ever-increasing numbers. There are stricter rules for asylum cases, and the administration is examining visa applications. The administration has also ended President Joe Biden’s refugee programs while Trump is now granting white South Africans protected status.
United States law gives the president considerable authority to manage border protection and asylum and immigration policy. The second Trump administration knows how to exploit it, as the new “proclamation” of a travel ban for 12 countries and tightened restrictions for another seven countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, demonstrates.
Legally, Trump is arguing that, as president, he is obligated to protect the country from “foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats.” Criteria listed for bans against specific countries include lack of screening options, a high rate of visa overstay, risk of terrorism and lack of cooperation with deportations.
United States legal experts consider the travel ban to be legally impervious, thanks in part to a precedent ruling from 2018. Unlike Trump’s earlier executive orders, the “proclamation” does not appear as a demagogic announcement; instead, it was subject to thorough vetting, as is, in fact, usually the case in a functioning U.S. administration. The Trump administration wants to make it more difficult to abuse a visa, above all, and claims that rate of people overstaying their visas in the case of immigrants from many affected countries is more than 40%.
‘We Don’t Want Them’
They very wisely do not state a reason for acting. Many asylum applications originate from people who crossed the border legally. But Trump and his strategist-in-chief are not wasting any energy thinking about the humanitarian situation or those who collaborated with United States organizations and troops in Afghanistan. They are aiming to close all possible entryways for immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees — even for foreign students. Or, as Trump said when he announced the travel ban, “We don’t want them.” European eyes are fixed on Trump’s immigration reform. We can learn how to effectively stop immigration — but we can also learn the price of doing so.
Previous article![]( "Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle")
Next article![]( "Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation")