Barely two months into his second term, President Donald Trump has already become a consequential president. Unfortunately, no matter how good are his ends, he too often chooses maladroit and even destructive means. He has roiled international commerce, tanked domestic markets, turned friendly populations hostile, and staged embarrassing retreats.

Up next may be yet another excessive attempt to immanentize one of his worst passions, hostility toward immigration. The administration apparently is preparing a much-expanded travel ban. Eight years ago he targeted seven Muslim-majority nations, halting political and religious refugees midflight. Among his victims were Iranian Christians, who had abandoned their homes and fled to Europe, awaiting entry into America, for which they had been vetted. The ill consequences of Trump’s arbitrary diktat undermined his attempt to overhaul immigration.

Trump’s reelection has triggered a replay. In January he froze refugee admissions: “The order closed the country to 700 Iranian Jews who had applied for refugee [through a special Iran program],” the Times of Israel reported. “These Jews were among more than 13,000 applicants from other religious minorities in Iran, including Christians, Baha’is, Sabean-Mandaeans and Zoroastrians.” Who, other than the Islamic extremists who dominate Iranian politics, benefits from this policy?

The administration apparently is developing a much larger travel prohibition. The purpose, Trump declared in a January Executive Order, is to protect Americans “from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” Although the planning is more serious than in 2017, the means looks no less flawed. 

Of course, the government should screen foreigners coming to America, but the standards should be narrow and substantive. Domestic terrorism is a very low probability event. Governments routinely abuse the concept of national security. For instance, at the extreme, Hong Kong now deems essentially any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, or local CCP apparatchiks to “endanger national security.” 

Punishing “hateful ideology” opens a Pandora’s Box. Today the administration is targeting criticism of Israel. The next Democratic administration might use the rule to bar any foreigner who espouses a MAGAesque philosophy. Malevolence is in the eye of the beholder. That standard could apply to many red and blue activists alike.

Equally important, the means should be tailored to the end. First, standards should be looser for visitors than immigrants. The latter settle permanently, ultimately helping to shape what America is and becomes. In contrast, personal character, temperament, behavior, political views, and the like matter little for transitory contact. Absent a desire and ability to do harm, there are few reasons to prevent people from visiting for a specific purpose and a limited time.  

Second, restrictions should be tailored to the threat, which is usually the result of individual, not national, characteristics. A ban rarely makes sense. There may be legitimate reasons to restrict travel, but rare is the justification for an absolute ban. Indeed, openness can boost national security. Meeting adversaries whose governments have poor relationships with the U.S. government can be useful, even vital. The right kind of contact can help subvert authoritarian regimes. At least one of Mikhail Gorbachev’s aides had long before visited the US.

The administration reportedly plans a three-tier system. At the bottom, countries would be given 60 days to meet complaints such as “failing to share with the United States information about incoming travelers, purportedly inadequate security practices for issuing passports, or the selling of citizenship to people from banned countries.” The tentative list has 22 nations: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Vanuatu, and Zimbabwe. 

The group includes a rogues’ gallery of authoritarian, corrupt, and hostile governments, failed states, and conflict-ridden lands. However, some democratic, reasonably liberal states, such as Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Lucia, also are included. They are a category apart from many of the other targeted nations. Corruption and crime are issues for these governments, but their citizens aren’t likely to pose a major threat to Americans. These nations should not be treated the same.

For countries which fail to meet the administration’s standards, the response should be careful scrutiny rather than absolute prohibition. People have reason to flee the endless war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and religious violence in the Republic of the Congo (where Christians are most at risk). Political repression is high in Chad, Zimbabwe, and Angola. Washington should not trust their authorities, so a review of current practices may well be warranted. However, the abuses of these governments are an important reason not to shut off travel by their oppressed and persecuted peoples.

The administration plans to tightly restrict visas for ten countries: Belarus, Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Turkmenistan. This list is also a curious mix. Turkmenistan and South Sudan compete to be the least free nations on Earth, rated worse than North Korea; Eritrea is another ruthless dictatorship, tied with the North on the Freedom House Freedom in the World index. In contrast, Sierra Leone is rated partly free and holds regular multi-party elections. It has serious problems, but nothing like the preceding states. Haiti is in violent chaos, Myanmar has descended into countrywide civil war, Pakistan is a faux democracy run by the military and pervaded by Islamic radicalism. Laos is a sleepy communist dictatorship. Belarus is allied with Russia, which is the target of an allied proxy war over Ukraine, but with which the Trump administration wants to improve relations.

Undoubtedly, the president doesn’t want to trigger another wave of mass migration from Haiti, but America should be willing to offer sanctuary to those most seriously threatened by violence. The totalitarian states are nasty but pose no meaningful security threat. South Sudanese continue to kill each other, not Americans. Similar is Myanmar/Burma. Isolating the Burmese people does not punish Myanmar’s generals. Pakistan is a continuing source of radical Islamists, but Americans, in and out of government, should maintain a dialogue with more liberal Pakistanis. And given the dismal state of Washington’s relations with Moscow, the U.S. needs more, not less, contact with the people of Russia and Belarus. While Washington won’t easily drive Moscow and Beijing apart, the U.S. could at least stop driving them together.

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

Finally, there are eleven countries from which all travel would be prohibited. The eternally damned are Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. A full travel ban should require a compelling justification. However, that is largely absent in these cases. To start, Bhutan? Nestled between China and India, this Himalayan country has a population under 800,000 and is rated free by Freedom House. A few Bhutanese have been found to be living illegally in America, 17 in 2022, but that hardly constitutes a crisis. (Perhaps one of the president’s factotums was denied a tourist visa to the mountainous kingdom and decided to use this opportunity to exact massive retaliation.)

The president apparently wants to restart negotiations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Although there likely would be few visitors from the North, at least in the near term, Washington should encourage enhanced contacts. Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela are highly repressive and regime opponents might find America to be the only alternative to prison. Trump also is seeking talks with Iran, which would be advanced by allowing its people to visit America. Libya, Somalia, and Sudan are in various degrees of chaos, violence, and competing governments. While Washington has good reason to be careful in granting visas amid shambolic violence, it should not forbid all travel. Afghanistan’s Taliban was recently at war with America, but dwelling on the past will not improve the future. The only certainty is that refusing to engage the ruling regime is not going to liberate anyone. Finally, the U.S. is fighting an undeclared war with Yemen. Ansar Allah might pose a terrorist threat, but, again, it is foolish to say never to Yemeni visitors. 

Eight years ago Trump’s hastily and carelessly drafted “Muslim ban” had to be twice rewritten, and even then its botched execution bedeviled the administration throughout the president’s term. This time, at least, his officials appear to be debating the issue before crafting new rules. However, more work is necessary, assuming the leaks reflect reality. Ban travel from Bhutan? How would this protect America? And if Trump hopes to warm American relations with Russia and North Korea, how does prohibiting their people from traveling to the U.S. help? Instead, Washington should maintain a generally open door for visitors. Since its founding the U.S. has grown, prospered, and dominated because of its attraction to others. The president needs to reconsider his approach to other nations. Today more than a quarter of Canadians view America as their enemy, an astounding number. Trump needs to stop repelling and start persuading. Toward that end, his administration should continue to welcome visitors from around the world.