In Our View: Travel Ban Problematic

President Donald Trump’s travel ban 2.0 is a big improvement over his first clunky effort — yet problems persist.

On Monday, the president issued a temporary ban on travel to the United States from six Muslim-majority countries — Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen (Iraq was removed from the original list). Unlike the initial ban that was subsequently struck down by the courts, the new executive order makes room for legal U.S. residents or those already vetted to return to this country if they are abroad. The lack of such a provision in Trump’s first attempt resulted in legal residents being detained at airports or, in a few cases, being put on a plane to return from whence they came.

The latest effort also provides 10 days’ warning, being scheduled to go into effect March 16. The initial ban was issued on a Friday with little guidance for immigration officials on how to implement it. This resulted in a chaotic weekend filled with confusion and protests at numerous airports throughout the country. When the ban subsequently was struck down, Trump churlishly tweeted about a “so-called judge” and, later, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

His retreat from that aggressive stance was noted Monday by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “By rescinding his earlier executive order, President Trump makes one thing perfectly clear: His original travel ban was indefensible — legally, constitutionally and morally,” Ferguson said.

Throughout the discussion over Trump’s proposals, Ferguson has represented his state with aplomb. Washington led the way in taking the issue to court, quickly being granted a stay because of the order’s questionable constitutionality. Microsoft and nearly 100 other companies also joined the court fight, noting that a ban “gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations — and hire new employees — outside the United States.”

Therein lies an important point. While the need for national security is clear, there is little evidence that Trump’s desire to prevent travel from the targeted countries will enhance that security. No terrorist attacks have been carried out on U.S. soil by people who arrived in this country from the nations included in the ban. Because of that, Trump’s efforts amount to fear-mongering and demonization of the “other” rather than a well-reasoned security measure.

Such fear-mongering can have a detrimental economic impact. Many of the high-tech companies that have spurred a boom locally are dependent upon foreign workers, with some of those workers coming from countries included in the travel ban. As Seattle-based Amazon noted in a court brief, the company has 49 employees from countries named in the initial order. That is just one example, and it is repeated by numerous companies throughout Washington.

Economics are secondary to national security, but efforts to protect the homeland must adhere to the Constitution. That ultimately will determine the fate of the administration’s latest effort, which is certain to face a battle in court and in Congress. Ferguson, on Monday, said he was examining the order and had not decided whether the state would challenge the new ban. Washington Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are among the co-sponsors of a bill seeking to overturn Trump’s action.

Meanwhile, the administration should be pressed to demonstrate that travel ban 2.0 does, indeed, enhance security instead of simply pandering to those who are fearful of Muslims. Given the evidence, that would appear to be a difficult task.